AiG: "Evolution not a theory" and "Four power questions"

[Deleted member 619]

Why would anybody want to come back the god of the bible? I ever meet the cunt, I'll kick the fucking shit out of him.

Now fuck off with your preaching. It isn't welcome and, while you continue to do it, neither are you. Nobody here wants to share your stupid masturbation fantasy.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

Let me try to explain why Hough is wrong in simpler terms.

I used the analogy earlier of a flow of water entering a valley, the key question being:

Does the water (intentionally) seek to fill every crevice in the valley or does the valley (unintentionally) shape the flow of water, forcing it to fill every crevice?

The theory of evolution holds that it is the latter.

Shapiro's NGE and Hough's SDG claim it is the former.

Shapire claims that it's the cell which decides how to adapt to the environment - Hough, in contrast, goes a step further and claims that it's the genome (DNA) which decides how to adapt to the environment.

For all intents and purposes, it's as if the cell or the genome were "looking around" (through its senses) at the environment and deciding how to adapt to it.

These are nonsensical ideas: it grants the cell/genome a level of consciousness that only a person could have - and we have difficulty enough working out how to "adapt" to our environment ourselves.

In another thread we've dealt with the difference between teleology and teleonomy - which is what my analogy above represents. Shapiro and Hough are making the error of necessitating intent where none is needed.

The theory of evolution doesn't need these "fixes", nor does evolution itself - it occurs, we've witnessed it, therefore it's a fact.

Kindest regards,

James

Yeah but Hough seems to know more about the human genome project that was not really friendly to evolutionists,but they ignored it to keep the evolution dogma.Keep in mind that Hough is an atheist and is not a Christian nor desires to be as far as I can tell and he is still an evolutionist,he just is being honest and pointing out the problems with evolution but was ignored.You must understand that it is not easy to speak out about evolution and I think it takes guts to do it.

You can disagree with Hough but I think before you do? You should understand where he is coming from and then look at the evidence yourself,like I did and it lined up exactly with what Hough noticed and the problem still remains.If you want the truth and are not biased? Then compare what Dawkins and Coyne says,etc to what Hough says. Evidence speaks louder to me than words do. I'm siding with an atheist,imagine that.

Hough to me is kinda like Rupert Sheldrake who I' ve brought up before except that Hough is an atheist,but both accept evolution but just have tried to steer evolution in the right direction only to be ignored by evolution dogma.What is interesting is both Hough and Rupert Sheldrake seem to know about the human genome project and the truth about what it revealed,other evolutionists ignore it.

"Seems to know" and "know" are not the same thing.

The people who'd know best are those who actually worked on the HGP.

As I pointed out Hough is arguing against his perceived flaws in Neo-Darwinism - the theory has moved on since then: his arguments are no longer relevant.

I dealt with them both here.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Why would anybody want to come back the god of the bible? I ever meet the cunt, I'll kick the fucking shit out of him.

Now fuck off with your preaching. It isn't welcome and, while you continue to do it, neither are you. Nobody here wants to share your stupid masturbation fantasy.

Because he's an awesome God,not the monster certain atheists make him out to be.Me thinks you can't handle the truth or disagreement.Do you really think you can beat up the king of kings and lord of lords?Talk about a fantasy.

 

[Visaki]

Because he's an awesome God,not the monster certain atheists make him out to be.Me thinks you can't handle the truth or disagreement.Do you really think you can beat up the king of kings and lord of lords?Talk about a fantasy.

Apparently you haven't read the Bible, or don't believe it is an accurate representation of Gods character.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

- Richard Dawkings

I agree with hackenslash; if God was real he'd be served from a good trashing, deposing and he would be the single entity for whom an eternal punishment might be moral

 

[SpecialFrog]

Why would anybody want to come back the god of the bible? I ever meet the cunt, I'll kick the fucking shit out of him.

Now fuck off with your preaching. It isn't welcome and, while you continue to do it, neither are you. Nobody here wants to share your stupid masturbation fantasy.

Because he's an awesome God,not the monster certain atheists make him out to be.Me thinks you can't handle the truth or disagreement.Do you really think you can beat up the king of kings and lord of lords?Talk about a fantasy.

Do you really think this is "awesome"?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_of_God_personally_killing_people

 

[Visaki]

Do you really think this is "awesome"?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_of_God_personally_killing_people

Also, the same statistics about the Evil one, Great Decivier, Satan:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_of_Satan_personally_killing_people :shock:

Yeah, we can clearly see who wins that competition, don't we?

 

[Gnug215]

I think you were deceived away from Christ because YEC's make the bible seem so wrong when it comes to science.You probably got frustrated and could no longer tolerate it.Well you can come back now because the gap theory that was being preached and taught in the church before Charles Darwin came along and messed up the view of what the evidence was revealing by making evolution fit into the known scientific evidence of that time.

It was Christians like William Buckland that discovered the earth was old,discovered fossils and evidence of a former world that existed on this earth.Charles Darwin tricked the scientific elite of the west and sent them on an evolution quest for nothing covering up what the evidence was really proving and after 150 years it has never been demonstrated by any scientist life evolves.

We might be a minority but it does not change or effect the truth.You can come back to the God of the bible because when you have the right interpretation? Nature and what it reveals will line up with it and confirm it true,and if it doesn't? You might want to question your interpretation and search for alternative interpretations.

Lol, you're a joke. You just don't get it, do you? You're every bit as laughable, unreasonable, anti-scientific and crazy as the YECs are.

Your "explanations" on this board have done nothing to persuade anything here of anything, other than the fact that you're unhinged, and that your "theory" is absolute bunk.

I thought I made that pretty clear in my post, but your fundamentalist eyes only really see what they want to, don't they?

The only one who's deceived around here is you.

 

[Gnug215]

Why would anybody want to come back the god of the bible? I ever meet the cunt, I'll kick the fucking shit out of him.

Now fuck off with your preaching. It isn't welcome and, while you continue to do it, neither are you. Nobody here wants to share your stupid masturbation fantasy.

Because he's an awesome God,not the monster certain atheists make him out to be.Me thinks you can't handle the truth or disagreement.Do you really think you can beat up the king of kings and lord of lords?Talk about a fantasy.

The fantasy, Abel, is that this God exists in the first place.

The jury is still very much out on whether he actually exists. You've certainly done nothing to argue the case.

In fact, you've damaged the case for God, if anything:

You've been entirely unreasonable.
You've exhibited huge problems with reading comprehension AND expression your own thoughts.
You continuously failed to substantiate ANY of your claims.
You've shown denial and obtuseness in the face of our claims, which for the most part have been sourced.
You've repeatedly gone against accepted science, apparently feeling intellectually superior to people who are demonstrably intellectually superior to you.

So... if God's followers are like you: stubborn, irrational, obtuse, Dunning-Kruger-suffering, unintelligent fanatics, then that's just a club I can't be a part of.

 

[Deleted member 619]

So... if God's followers are like you: stubborn, irrational, obtuse, Dunning-Kruger-suffering, unintelligent fanatics, then that's just a club I can't be a part of.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Your misguided belief in a "gap" clouds your view of what the evidence really says - that's the problem.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

That is simply not the case - there was no "former world" as you believe.

You are unable to place your "gap" anywhere in Earth's history - as such, you cannot claim it to be true.

Yes I can,the evidence reveals it on its own.Tell me why there were wooly mammoths and mastadons in the former world?while in this world we have elephants.The evidence speaks for itself.

No, you can't - you've bounced around trying to place it until I mentioned the end of the Ice Age as the last extinction event, then you claimed it was at that point your alleged "gap" occurred.

I've pointed out, and cited scientific articles to prove it, that mammoths survived the end of the Ice Age (until 1650BCE) and that they co-existed with elephants (in Africa and India).

You ignored this fact then as you are ignoring it now with your pointless question and claims.

And mammoths weren't the only creatures to survive the end of the Ice Age - again, as I pointed out and cited scientific articles as proof.

Again, as you continue to ignore.

The scientific evidence stands with me - not you.

Science didn't "go with uniformitarianism because of the theory of evolution" - science went with the theory of evolution because of the geological evidence: fossils were always found in certain strata in a particular order - ergo, life evolved over geological time.

The theory of evolution was blended in with uniformitarianism.The fossils were supposed to show all kindsvof intermediate life forms yet never did,which is why every fossil is a fully formed highly sophisticated life form like trilobite's that had eyes,a digestive system,nervous system,etc, they do not show any signs of evolution like they were supposed to.And you had beavers the size of black bears in the former world yet the small beavers we have in this world and no evolution has happened.God made the beavers in this world after the kind of beavers that were in the former world.

As with all creationists you fail to realise that "hard bits" tend to be fossilised - "soft bits", except in rare circumstances, are not fossilised.

Particularly when they're inside the "hard bits"!

Regarding the beavers, it's clear that you either haven't read or failed to read the article or what I said about this.

Genesis 1:24" And God said,Let the earth bring forth the living creature AFTER HIS KIND,cattle,and creeping thing,and beast of the earth AFTER HIS KIND:and it was so.

There are no such things as "kinds" - these are simply how the Hebrews categorized life-forms according to their religious beliefs about what was and what wasn't kosher.

And you also first have to prove the existence of a god, then that it's the god in which you believe before finally proving that it has anything to do with any of this.

Why don't you read what the article actually says and then go back and re-read what I said in my post that addressed this article?

Because you're trying to say beavers the size of black bears evolved into the small beavers in this world and that is not evolution and you know it is'nt.You cannot pick and choose which life evolves and which life doesn't.I cannot even believe you can be this dishonest to believe that is evolution.When life evolves it is supposed to evolve over time into another kind of life like dinosaurs evolving into birds,not beavers remaining beavers but just smaller,you're trying to make evolution stick to any situation when it does not fit.Like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

Clearly, you are unable to take in what is written down in black and white in front of you - whether on paper or on a screen.

At no point did I claim that bear-sized beavers evolved into small beavers.

Read the article and what I said about it in the relevant earlier posts.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[abelcainsbrother]

I think you were deceived away from Christ because YEC's make the bible seem so wrong when it comes to science.You probably got frustrated and could no longer tolerate it.Well you can come back now because the gap theory that was being preached and taught in the church before Charles Darwin came along and messed up the view of what the evidence was revealing by making evolution fit into the known scientific evidence of that time.

It was Christians like William Buckland that discovered the earth was old,discovered fossils and evidence of a former world that existed on this earth.Charles Darwin tricked the scientific elite of the west and sent them on an evolution quest for nothing covering up what the evidence was really proving and after 150 years it has never been demonstrated by any scientist life evolves.

We might be a minority but it does not change or effect the truth.You can come back to the God of the bible because when you have the right interpretation? Nature and what it reveals will line up with it and confirm it true,and if it doesn't? You might want to question your interpretation and search for alternative interpretations.

Lol, you're a joke. You just don't get it, do you? You're every bit as laughable, unreasonable, anti-scientific and crazy as the YECs are.

Your "explanations" on this board have done nothing to persuade anything here of anything, other than the fact that you're unhinged, and that your "theory" is absolute bunk.

I thought I made that pretty clear in my post, but your fundamentalist eyes only really see what they want to, don't they?


The only one who's deceived around here is you.

Whatever,the really only thing I disagree with in science is evolution,that doesn't male me anti-science.Who says I'm here to change minds? As I don't think I can change minds,all I can do is point out what I believe and give reasons and evidence behind it,but I cannot change some bodies mind that has chose to not believe in God.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Criticism is not going to effect me.Evidence will and if you don't like why I reject evolution then show me how what I say about it is wrong with evidence.Nobody has,instead all I get is mocked but I can handle that if I'm right and you're wrong.

Nothing I have said against evolution is untrue,I can't help it that you disregard the truth I speak then expect me to believe scientists by faith like you have chose to do because they are smarter than you.I go by evidence and I can't help it if that offends you.Prove me wrong! Instead of just mocking me because it just does not effect me when I know I' m right.

Why is it no big deal to you that when we examine the evidence used as evidence life evolves? We only see either reproduction being demonstrated or adaptation? How come we don't see natural selection? How come we don't see life evolve? This is a problem and I can' t help it if you choose to disregard this and ignore this and mock me for pointing it out.

To me you' re only hurting yourself,not me.I'm not going to keep repeating myself why don' t you actually go and look yourself? You just might realize that Christian you mocked is right.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

It is a fact that viruses only adapt,they never evolve and change into another kind of life,no matter what kind of virus it is?it will always be that virus even after it has adapted,natural selection has no effect on a virus.This is the truth,I can't help it that you believe it evolves when it only adapts.

Them weeds that adapt to survive weed killer will never evolve into another kind of life,you are only only seeing life adapt to survive a hostile environment and again,natural selection has no effect on it.As it will remain the same kind of weed.How we were tricked is that when a scientist in a lab sees life adapt?he calls it evolution,even though it never evolves.I could go on and on.

Dogs which represent micro-evolution is only showing reproduction as it makes no difference what traits you breed for,it is only going to produce a dog and nothing else but this is used as evidence life evolves.Let me tell you that animal breeders were aware of variations in reproduction long before Charles Darwin assumed that it leads to more,he was wrong.Animal breeders bread dogs from wolves thousands of years ago and knew all about variations it can produce,which is how they produced the many differemt dog breeds and we would lose full blooded breeds if man did not control the breeding.This is not evolution,nor can this be used as evidence life evolves,yet it is.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

The fact that you don't accept evolution does not mean it doesn't occur - it's just your ill-informed opinion against those who actually study it professionally.

Do you believe that there are "five races" - white, yellow, red, brown, and black?

If so, have a DNA test and then explain the results.

It'll show the evolutionary path of our species - African -> European (plus Neanderthal) -> Asian (plus Denisovan) -> Native American.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[surreptitious57]

Criticism is not going to effect me

Constructive criticism should make you re evaluate the legitimacy of any claims that you make
Yet when it is employed with regard to the ones you make you simply disregard it since it does
not conform to your world view. So until you discard yourself of that notion then you shall never
learn a single thing. And I seriously question whether you have actually learnt anything now. As
every time you have been corrected on something you just refuse to acknowledge it. It is almost
as if you are hard wired to disagree with everything anyone here says so simply cannot accept it

 

[Deleted member 619]

Say hello to Morton's Demon, possibly the most powerful iteration of it this commenter has ever encountered, and that's quite an achievement, given the vast body of experience I've garnered over the years in such matters. Fuck, Robert Byers wasn't this bad.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Tortucan.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Gnug215]

Whatever,the really only thing I disagree with in science is evolution,that doesn't male me anti-science.Who says I'm here to change minds? As I don't think I can change minds,all I can do is point out what I believe and give reasons and evidence behind it,but I cannot change some bodies mind that has chose to not believe in God.

You only disagree with evolution? Yet again you haven't been paying attention, or failed to properly read and understand our posts, or you're just too untelligent and/or deluded to see it, but when you disagree with evolution as the "only" thing in science, there is a LOT in science you disagree with, not just biologists.

And this isn't even the case. What you disagree with is everything and anything that doesn't fit with your gap "theory". So you've been going on about ice ages and extinction events, for instance. That's not "evolution", which deals with lifeforms changing over time. That falls under stuff like geology and similar sciences.

As I've said before, this means you also disagree with geology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, cosmology, etc.

In your deluded fantasies, you think that as soon as someone is talking about ANYthing that doesn't fit your gap "theory", then it's just "dem evil evolutionists talking".

And so, that makes you anti-science.


Oh, I can't speak for everyone in here, but I assume it's the case for most: Generally, people don't CHOOSE to believe in God or not.

What an idiotic thing to claim. Just goes to show how your deluded mind works.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Greetings,

Tortucan.

Kindest regards,

James

Indeed. I'm meeting Captain Jack Sparrow there later and we're gonna get smashed on rum.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Whatever,the really only thing I disagree with in science is evolution,that doesn't male me anti-science.Who says I'm here to change minds? As I don't think I can change minds,all I can do is point out what I believe and give reasons and evidence behind it,but I cannot change some bodies mind that has chose to not believe in God.

You only disagree with evolution? Yet again you haven't been paying attention, or failed to properly read and understand our posts, or you're just too untelligent and/or deluded to see it, but when you disagree with evolution as the "only" thing in science, there is a LOT in science you disagree with, not just biologists.

And this isn't even the case. What you disagree with is everything and anything that doesn't fit with your gap "theory". So you've been going on about ice ages and extinction events, for instance. That's not "evolution", which deals with lifeforms changing over time. That falls under stuff like geology and similar sciences.

As I've said before, this means you also disagree with geology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, cosmology, etc.

In your deluded fantasies, you think that as soon as someone is talking about ANYthing that doesn't fit your gap "theory", then it's just "dem evil evolutionists talking".

And so, that makes you anti-science.


Oh, I can't speak for everyone in here, but I assume it's the case for most: Generally, people don't CHOOSE to believe in God or not.

What an idiotic thing to claim. Just goes to show how your deluded mind works.

I have told everybody that I look at science from a gap theory perspective and you all look at it from an evolution perspective,this means we are not always going to agree,but to say I am unscientific because I reject evolution is just not true.Nothing I have said about evolution has been refuted by anyone on here still.This thread is about evolution and I have not been corrected just because somebody posts something against the bible.

I believe the bible is the inspired word of God so I don't really care about lies critics spread about it.I am already aware of a lot of it.It does not prove the bible is wrong just because people post links from bible critics.It is not my job to try to persuade somebody to believe the bible,they either do or don't but I give all kinds of reasons and evidence why it is true,that is all I can do.