What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Missed out on the best electronic deals last Black Friday? view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com's Cyber Monday Promotion has you covered. No Lines, No Crowds; Just Click and Save.
99 Comments
- Vanderkeif, on 11/07/2009, -6/+20No, Im pretty sure it was Jesusosaurus rex.
- ApokalypseNow, on 11/08/2009, -0/+10We've already shown that your bible is a bunch of hogwash - meanwhile, abiogenesis research is objective, testable, and repeatable. Your bible fails accuracy tests. It is not objective. You certainly cannot repeat anything in it. Why do you waste your life on a fairy tale?
- Akraz, on 11/07/2009, -1/+11٩(̾●̮̮̃̾•̃̾)۶
- Mnementh2230, on 11/10/2009, -0/+9"Did you two realize I can use the exact same logics to describe your believe in evolution. Creationism has been replaced by your brainwashed ideologies of what evolution is. Evolution is entirely made up."
Except that's demonstrably not the case. Putting aside the various arguments and evidence that the bible is entirely the work of man, there are also literal MOUNTAINS of objective, empirical evidence for Evolutionary Theory. I've been over those examples of physical evidence with you before, so I'll just move along for now.
"It is demonstratable and repeatable only in controlled Laboratory experiments."
It is not demonstrable and repeatable only in lab conditions - we also have all the same evidence that is happens in the wild. See the Foraminifera, see the complete fossil record of the evolution of Man, see the complete fossil record of the evolution of the whale, see the complete fossil record for the evolution of birds, etc, etc, etc.
"but articles that you wish not to provide that scramble your theory all to hell."
Care to share? I'd love to see such a thing.
"Like how evolutionist scientists can artificially age bones to make them older than they are"
Yeah, we can do that for certain radiological dating methods, but can we do it for all of them? Nope. Remember, there is more than one way to date a fossilized bone.
"how some evolutionists have replaced bone particles to make it seems they found fossil remains that support their experiments."
And they've been caught, yes? Thus, the self correcting nature of science.
"How about the great Piltdown man discovered in 1912 and was finally uncovered as a hoax in 1953 of which one tooth that was used in this fraud was found to belong to an extinct form of pig."
Piltdown man was NEVER accepted by the scientific community. Even in 1915, it was generally disregarded. As for your pig-tooth to man comparison, that was the invention of the media, and NOT the scientific community - again, it was never accepted by the scientific community as genuine.
You're only looking at one side of the story, hcharger - the side the common man saw. What the common man sees, and what the scientific community sees, are VERY separate and distinct things.
"Gawd man, there are tons of reading that kick the wits out of your evolution crap."
Share a few. See, most of us here have already seen quite a few of them, and they've been thoroughly debunked for a variety of reasons. Still, perhaps you can surprise us - share some.
"...but to come out with I'm completely wrong on every accord is unjustified."
It is completely justified - you have done no special study of the subject, and you have no ability to think critically. As such, you latch on to whatever story you think best supports your own views without holding it up to the light of skepticism, while those of us who do so have yet to see a single argument against Evolutionary Theory that stands up to rigorous investigation. - ApokalypseNow, on 11/09/2009, -0/+9Evolution isn't something "imagined up", it is demonstrable and repeatable, you can see it happen whether you want to accept it or not. That you are unable or unwilling to accept it has no bearing on its validity. Further, that you are unable or unwilling to accept that your fairy tales have no objective, empirical evidence to support them does not mean that they suddenly do.
- lydecker, on 11/11/2009, -0/+9Answer my question, please. Why do you deny evolutionary theory and discredit it without even the slightest notion of what the supporting data is?
Do you have a problem with your own actions. - sivyr, on 11/11/2009, -0/+9Quoting lydecker:
"Answer my question, please. Why do you deny evolutionary theory and discredit it without even the slightest notion of what the supporting data is?"
I second this question.
One would think that someone who didn't know about it wouldn't have much of an opinion or position either way, lacking all evidence. Then again, if something is causing a conflict of interest... - Mnementh2230, on 11/08/2009, -0/+8http://evogeneao.com/images/Evolution_poster_lg.gi ...
- Mnementh2230, on 11/09/2009, -0/+8It's the progression of life through time.
Did you miss the labels on the axes? - joelcass, on 11/07/2009, -0/+8That's almost a sentence.
- lydecker, on 11/09/2009, -0/+8"you have shown me nothing"
Actually you see nothing, though they have shown you plenty, as is even evidenced by the link below. You will probably never see the truth of what they are saying because your mind has been very protective of your faith and therefore anything that weakens it you deem indignate crap of the imagination (all the while failing to realize the irony of what ACTUALLY was conjured up by religionists)
I'm sorry you believe without your faith you would be a worse person. The research done on evolution by scientists has lead to a myriad of medical benefits, understanding of our biology and of nature, and helps us combat disease and repair our bodies. The fact that you believe the people who've helped us with these medical advancements are a "waste of life" is despicable; you would rather people fall ill and die so your faith lies unchallenged. - sivyr, on 11/10/2009, -0/+8Quoting hcharger:
"In this case, time will prove everything and time according to the bible proves we are living in the last days and regardless how much you try, you'll never convince me otherwise and you'll never prove me wrong."
@ the sciency crowd
This statement both makes me wonder why you guys spend so much time trying to argue evolution with him, and makes me wonder how I can stand not attempting to.
I think the only thing keeping me from boldly countering such falsehoods and misconceptions of evolution as hcharger, CrazedLeper and DavidNiven come up with is the notion that an argument is possibly the worst way to convince them.
That being said, I'm starting no note a lot of buzzwords used by our crowd that perhaps should be dispelled from such overuse... They're not bad words in the descriptive sense, but when once speaks them too often they take on a condescending tone that probably bothers people.
"demonstrably" -- Yes, this is a useful word. When used sparingly. Find ways to reword your sentences to use it less often if you can.
"extant" -- This word is just a more arcane word meaning the same thing as existent. The only reason I see for its overuse is intellectual snobbery. The side effect of this is your audience loses your points more easily when confronted with words that are uncommon. Again, go ahead and use it -- sparingly.
"Evolutionary Theory" -- Yeah, I know this theory is important, but when you capitalize it like this, you illicit a sense of reverence in the concept to others, as this capitalization parallels that of "God" and "He" (when referring to god). You know how many people honestly believe that we hold religious belief in evolution, so this is pretty important. No theory deserves this kind of special grammatical attention, unless it's the heading of a page.
I think that's all I can think of at the moment. Please take these criticisms under advisement, because I think all of our writing will be better in general by avoiding sending the wrong messages.
@hcharger
Well, your faith will keep you safe from us. As always. Please, just continue trying hard to disprove our "opinions".
Just be sure to check all your sources when you find articles that debunk us with, because we will, and that could be embarrassing. - Mnementh2230, on 11/11/2009, -0/+8Lydecker - that's exactly my question. How can someone who demonstrably doesn't even know how Evolution works completely discredit it? It's an act of cognitive dissonance that I shall never understand.
hcharger, the lab work doesn't stand on its own - it's a proof of concept. The physical evidence out in the world doesn't stand on its own, either - it's a piece of the puzzle. When you take into account all the available data (the **STRICT** geological stratification of fossils in exactly the order we would expect, the corroborating dating of said fossils by multiple independent lines of questioning and evidence, the genetic evidence, and all the rest), it paints a picture of the history of life on this planet starting as simple proto-life, then going to a form of algae and simple single celled life, to more complex life forms, with life always branching and diversifying, with failed branches dying out as the environment changes. Only those branches that were capable of surviving in the new environment continued, while the rest either migrated or died out, and we see the evidence of this along with the corresponding evidence of environment change.
Every single piece of evidence ever uncovered by any field of science supports the Theory of Evolution completely. But you, somehow, with no evidence to back you up, no special study of the topic, no *understanding* of the topic, and a proven-fallible book compiled by committee in 325AD by the Council of Nicea, think you know better than the hundreds of thousands of biologists who work with Evolutionary Theory every day, making scientific advancements that better mankind, save lives, and improve the quality of life for everyone - advancements that would be nigh-impossible without understanding the Theory of Evolution in all of its complexity.
If you weren't so dead-set in your ways, tearing down education and learning in favor of blissful ignorance and some supposed nirvana of a simple life, I'd say this was a comedy. Instead, you fervently cling to your bronze-age superstition and try to bring the rest of mankind down to your level of willful ignorance, and this is a tragedy. - Mnementh2230, on 11/14/2009, -0/+7"There is no supporting data of evolution. If there is, where is it. Show me a species of animal or bird in its complete form from millions of years ago and show me the transitional changes that you evolutionists claim happen. You can't and you never will."
I've already done so - the Foraminifera. They make up almost an entire PHYLUM of life and can be traced all the way back to the mid Jurassic with a perfect day-by-day, year-by-year fossil record.
But you never bothered to do any research on them, did you, despite having been pointed towards them multiple times. - sivyr, on 11/11/2009, -0/+7@hcharger
You continue making such claims, but I don't see any research to back them up. Maybe you can say that scientists are such an in-group that they just don't want to consider they're collectively wrong or something, but the scientist who published a paper to shatter such a grand falsehood would easily become a legend and win a Nobel prize.
I don't know where you find such information suggesting that there is credible, current scientific research that suggests that evolution is shaky. If you are reading this from conservative media outlets, I'm not surprised, as they have been known to distort facts, spin conclusions and cite outdated and refuted research. All science journalism is guilty of this in some respect, unless the article is written by the scientist(s) whose work is being reported on.
The only way you can trust that you're not being duped is to study science honestly, and to subscribe directly to a peer-reviewed scientific journal, where scientists publish their most current results. There are few places to get the facts regarding any scientific subject that will be so correctly reported, because any scientists who gets published rests his reputation (and sometimes his job) on this material, and you can be sure each paper written is done to the best of their ability.
I have been reading such journals for a while. I have seen no contention regarding whether evolution is true. I've seen lots of back and forth regarding minutiae of how the process takes place, but the general concept has been well-established.
With regards to your concern that laboratory data doesn't prove much, most laboratory experiments are derived for the sole purpose of testing something that seems to occur in nature and either has been witnessed or is at least suspected to take place. They are done with the intention of understanding HOW something happens, so that it may be witnessed in nature more closely, and this cycle goes on. Labs are not divorced from reality. They are simply used to eliminate noise from the tests at hand. Data from laboratory tests has yielded a great deal of theory that has helped more naturalistic biologists identify processes taking place in the field.
Because they DO take place in the field.
So, while I'm sure my argument is falling on deaf ears, I encourage you to study science and subscribe to an unadulterated source of science media, with the intention of criticizing their work yourself. When you can start showing me scientific papers and why their results are inadmissible to scientific discourse, then we'll have a good long conversation about why. Unless you can pin specific instances of flawed data or conclusions about specific research efforts, I will remain unimpressed by your rants against the apparent "discrepancies" in the support for evolution. - Mnementh2230, on 11/15/2009, -0/+7Quoting your bible at me will get you nowhere, considering there's no objective reason to believe any of it is true...
- Mnementh2230, on 11/15/2009, -0/+7"You have shown me fossil records, I mean show me a complete version of the species you are trying to convince me about. Anyone can take fossil bones and have an artist draw the body image and pass it off as authentic, but artist's who are drawing these figures by imagination are also drawing them to an evolution purpose because they do not have authentic copies in which to produce a life like image."
Once again, it is obvious you haven't actually done the research. If you had, you'd realize how idiotic your arguments are against the Foraminifera. They're a sea-based life form - what we see isn't some fossil, it's their DAMNED SHELLS. See, if you'd actually done the research instead of just spouting off the same anti-intellectual *****, you might actually have some credibility. As it stands, you've just used up the last of it you have. You have no interest in learning, you have no interest in bettering yourself, you have no interested in educating yourself - you continue to lie over and over again without actually looking at the evidence we present to you, because you're AFRAID of it. You're AFRAID to learn, and that is the saddest thing of all.
I won't even dignify the rest of your post with a response. Until you can actually do something honestly... until you can actually go ***** LOOK at the DAMN SHELLS AND FOSSILS instead of making up some ***** excuse about "artist's renditions", you're just wasting my time with more of your willfully ignorant, fearful, anti-education non-sense. - lydecker, on 11/11/2009, -0/+7"there are no historical facts that go remotely past the 6000 years of man-kinds history, only fossils and your carbon tracing I've read is very unreliable."
It's not unreliable at all. Who have you read this from? Why do you attempt to discredit it without knowing at all what you are talking about?
"There is no evidence that supports evolution. The experiments done in laboratories, the fossil remains and most of the matter used to support evolution are either fraudalent, speculative and imaginative."
Yes there is evidence, and your ignorance of it and willingness for it to be false does not make it so.
Answer my question, please. Why do you deny evolutionary theory and discredit it without even the slightest notion of what the supporting data is?
Do you have a problem with your own actions? - lydecker, on 11/14/2009, -0/+7"So I'm a hypocite because I don't answer your question"
Not because you don't answer, no... as i said, you're a hypocrite because you call out other people who "deny your believe and discredit them without even the slightest notion of what they are talking about", and yet you do the same thing and you don't have a problem with it. That is what fits the definition of hypocrite, a person who pretends to have principles that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
"like I told you, what is there to answer."
What do you mean what is there to answer, you can answer WHY! Why do you deny evolutionary theory and discredit it without even the slightest notion of what the supporting data is?
"I've seen evolutionists say the world was 300 million years old, and in another couple years its 700 million, then a couple billion, now its 4 billion."
Evolutionists, or scientists? And have you seen the supporting data of any of those claims? Please cite evidence.
"You say I just don't want evolution to be true, not at all, I know evolution isn't true, just the same as you claim the bible is made up of myths and fairy tales."
When did I claim that? You don't know evolution isn't true, you just don't want it to be true. You know enough about evolution to know that it contradicts your belief system, and that is all you need for it to be not true in your mind. Evolution has supporting evidence, you don't have anything else. You do not have supporting evidence, nor any evidence that prophecies were made before they were fulfilled.
Why do you deny evolutionary theory and discredit it without even the slightest notion of what the supporting data is? - lydecker, on 11/11/2009, -0/+7"I do have a problem with people who deny your believe and discredit them without even the slightest notion of what they are talking about, and yes, that goes both ways."
Then why do you keep doing that with evolution? Which isn't a belief, by the way, but a scientific theory?
You have a problem with your own actions? - lydecker, on 11/13/2009, -0/+6Evolution is not a lie, but it is a great find, and it constantly gets reinforced with new real evidence that isn't lies. Your claim that they are invalid doesn't make it so. The truth is evident, it stands on it's own. We have no evidence that ever proves completely any scientific theory, including that of gravity, but a myriad of evidence that shows evolution is definitely the most likely cause for all the diversity on the planet. We know the era of fossils due to carbon dating, and we can tell the changes between species over time due to changes in their bone structure. Seriously, you don't know this and you claim it's a lie?
Answer my question, please. Why do you deny evolutionary theory and discredit it without even the slightest notion of what the supporting data is?
Do you have a problem with your own actions? - Mnementh2230, on 11/12/2009, -0/+6"I never said fossils or experiments were fraudulent, you said that."
You said, and I quote, "The experiments done in laboratories, the fossil remains and most of the matter used to support evolution are either fraudalent, speculative and imaginative."
That's pretty straight forward - how else should I take it?
"Using them to prove evolution is quite another thing, that is the speculative guesswork that goes into it."
Can you come up with
"Fossils are remains of creatures that lived thousands perhaps millions of years ago, they don't show any workings of evolution at all."
If that's the case, why is it that throughout the geological column some species suddenly appear, then disappear, while other very similar species appear as the old one disappears? We see this countless times in the fossil record, and I can provide you with dozens of examples if you like. Perhaps you believe in a God who made imperfect creatures, just to watch them die, before he ever created Man?
"What species that are examined is a species of its own origin, it did not evolve into any exaggerated species, that scientists and evolutionists are trying to con the population to support their claims."
Once again, then - please explain the evolution of the whale. We have every fossil step between the modern whale's land-based ancestors and it's slightly-more-modern seaborne ancestors. They're all in the same area, in the order we would expect in the geological column, with all the evolutionary changes we would expect to see during the course of that adaptation (as predicted by the Theory you so despise).
"That's why you stay on here, if you had an ounce of common sense, you would have concluded this thread long ago, just like the creationists who don't bother to reply to such one way theories."
Ah, but I'm having such a good time tearing your feeble arguments to ribbons with questions you, once again I might add, haven't answered. Tell me, have you even bothered to look at the various links I posted last regarding the Foraminifera, ERVs, lungfish, archaeopteryx, and the human appendix? I'm guessing not, given your incredible intent to remain as ignorant of the world around you as possible.
"Such a thing as a waste of time. Have you noticed, you have many who agree with you, that's all you're gonna get is yes guys, slaves of irrelevant knowledge just as you are."
On the contrary, I've educated more than a few Christians and shown them that their problems with the Theory of Evolution were completely unfounded - they were asking for evidence that would actually invalidate the Theory, because they didn't understand it at all (probably due in a large part to the shoddy public education system here in the US). The difference here is that they actually tried to have a reasoned debate, realized the error of their arguments, educated themselves, and in the end were grateful for their greater understanding of the biological sciences. Would you like names? I'd have to go back a fair bit in my comments history, but I'm sure I could dig a few up.
Would you like some education? I'd be happy to assist. All you have to do is ask, and have an open mind - and please note: An open mind doesn't mean accepting everything told to you at face value - it means you must have the ability to be convinced, which is something I doubt you have at the moment. You've assumed your correctness and cling to it despite physical evidence which contradicts your - much like a football player claiming the coin toss in the beginning of the game was heads when it was recorded live to be tails. Skepticism is more than welcome, but an open mind is just a crucial. - Mnementh2230, on 11/12/2009, -0/+6hcharger, if you're going to claim they're discredited, show some evidence that discredits them.
Further, how can you even say that with any authority when you don't even understand the process?
In other words, see Lydecker's post. - Mnementh2230, on 11/11/2009, -0/+6"There is no evidence that supports evolution. The experiments done in laboratories, the fossil remains and most of the matter used to support evolution are either fraudalent, speculative and imaginative."
So you're claiming that all the fossils that you can collect yourself off the seabed of the Foraminifera are fraudulent? Surely they can't be speculative or imaginative, as you can see them yourself. Just drop a pipe into the ocean floor, cap the far end, and pull it up. You'll have literally thousands of such fossils if you go down a few feet.
How can you claim that the lab work is speculative or fraudulent? Cit+ E. Coli bacteria certainly exist now, as do Nylon Eating bacteria. Hell, there are even humans out there with mutations to give them ultra-dense bones (ever seen the movie Unbreakable? Better than that!), natural muscle generation (without working out) that rivals that of Olympic athletes, and the ability to metabolize LDL cholesterol (useful in Italy, with their diet of foods high in LDL cholesterol - it keeps them from getting heart disease). I can provide you with links the relevant articles detailing these folks, if you like. The bottom line is that there's plenty of evidence even outside lab settings to show that Evolution has occurred, and continues to occur today.
"There is no exclusive evidence that can remotely ever support evolution mainly because we do not have samples from any era of time of which could support your theory."
Please explain archaeopteryx, then - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx. Please explain the Lungfish - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung_fish. Please explain the entire, complete fossil record of the Foraminifera - http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/foram/foramfr.html. Please explain why donkeys and horses can mate, if they're of different "kinds" (instead of divergent branches from a common ancestor, as demonstrated genetically and predicted by Evolutionary Theory). Please explain why the progeny of said unions, mules, aren't always sterile and can sometimes mate with other non-sterile mules. Please explain why humans and chimps share 27 K-class Endogenous Retroviruses in the same places in our genome - something so statistically improbable that it cannot be explained practically by any creationist. Please explain why the Chimp and Human genome look almost exactly alike - yes, we have different numbers of chromosomes, but we found where two of THEIRS fused to become one of OURS, and we can show exactly where that happened on the genetic sequence. Please explain why some animals appear and then disappear in the fossil record - Evolutionary Theory can (failed branches on the evolutionary tree), can you? Please explain the human appendix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix) - it's useless, unless you look at it from an Evolutionary standpoint, at which point it looks just like a vestigial organ. Please explain the human tailbone - for that matter, explain why some humans are *still born with tails!* (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/1192498 ... - Evolutionary Theory predicts this. Please explain why chicken have in their genome the code to make TEETH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken#General_biolo ... - Evolutionary Theory predicts such a thing.
I could keep going, if you like.
" In other words there are just as many discrepancies in your theory as there is support."
Your ignorance of the evidence is not an argument for your position, it is merely a demonstration of how little you actually care to do the relevant research and by so doing educate yourself. - Mnementh2230, on 11/12/2009, -0/+6"The point is sivlr, they aren't arguing with me about anything, they are arguing among themselves to see which one could convince me that this evolution crap is authentic."
Wrong again - we're supporting each other, because we've all got different areas and evidence that we're more familiar with.
"If you have doubts, then why do you suppose an educated person such as Mnementh consistently stays on here spewing so many invalid links that support only his views."
Invalid links? How are they invalid? If you're going to say they're invalid, perhaps you could try backing up your accusation with some form of physical evidence or reasoned logic? As for why I'm here... I guess I'm just having a good time continually asking you questions that neither you nor your religion can answer.
"Because a lie must be fortified with other lies in order for their self logical perspectives to survive"
And the truth as evidenced by objective reality must be defended from the self-righteously ignorant who would drag the rest of humanity down to their banal level.
", and if one does not have hope in God, what else is there."
I make my own purpose in life. I set my own goals. If you feel the need to have some supernatural sky-daddy hold your hand in order to have meaning in your life, I feel nothing but pity for you - your purpose is to remain ignorant and by so doing retard the progress of humanity. - Mnementh2230, on 11/11/2009, -0/+6"Your minds are so full of deceit"
Really - never mind that we actually have evidence to back up our claims, and you have none.
Faith, no matter how strongly held, is not knowledge.
"You have been trained (brainwashed) to accept only your views of what you were taught"
No, we've decided for ourselves to only accept that which is empirically and objectively evident. We decided to discard fantasy, superstition, and mythology for reality.
"that's why when I gave you scriptures as reference points, you discredited them because of ignorance, not knowledge."
On the contrary, many of us have a great deal of knowledge about the Bible. We also have a historical context in which it was written, and physical evidence that directly contradicts the bible's claims about the world. To be blunt, your claims about some inane piece of scripture are irrelevant because the book is objectively demonstrable to be a work of utter fantasy.
"I do not give a damned about your evidence as it is all inexclusive because there is no way you can trace matters back as far as your evolution theory goes"
See, you're wrong here, too. We absolutely can trace things back that far. For a nice, dramatic example, please see the Foraminifera - look 'em up on Wikipedia. We have a nearly perfect day-by-day, year-by-year fossil record of these guys going back to the mid-Jurassic.
"there are no historical facts that go remotely past the 6000 years of man-kinds history,"
You've been proven wrong on this point, too. We have writings from civilizations that are older than this.
"your carbon tracing I've read is very unreliable"
I presume you're talking about snails and other marine animals being dated as thousands or millions of years old - that's a **KNOWN** limitation, and it's called the reservoir effect. Also, please remember that Carbon is only one of a dozen or so different radiometric dating methods. Please look up radiometric dating on wikipedia - better yet, here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
"Your time elements are all guess work."
Nope - Radiometric dating is only one of several tools used to date an artifact or fossil. Generally speaking, several are used to make sure nothing is contaminated, and only when they all agree is an age established. Your ignorance of the process of how this sort of thing works is showing in the inanity of your arguments.
"You can mention 4 million years, 4 billion years, 4 trillion years and it all means the same when speculation is concerned"
Wrong again - we scientists take errors of any magnitude very seriously, and don't mistake speculation for informed estimation.
"Been around long enough to see for myself after things have changed so many times to figure out how phony the theory of evolution is."
Oh look, an argument from incredulity. The Theory of Evolution has remained largely unchanged for the past fifty years - we continue to refine it to be more accurate, but the basics are solidly established in a foundation of multiple lines of independent evidence from several fields of science, all of which corroborate each other.
"Now the bible is set in stone, without any doub't regardless whether you discredit it or not."
Agreed, the bible *is* set in stone, and as such how you can continue to believe it when more and more evidence is uncovered every day that contradicts it is something I fear I will never understand.
"which according to the facts outlined in scripture is very close."
There is very little "fact" outlined in scripture. There's a lot of fantasy and quite a few lies, but very few facts.
You've been shown evidence to show your bible is false. You've been shown that the sources you rely on to uphold your faith are disingenuous and false. You've been shown evidence that Evolutionary Theory is true, regardless of your faith. Any reasonable person should conclude, at this point, that the faith they hold dear is at the very least in drastic need of an overhaul.
He who cannot reason is a fool. He who will not reason is a bigot. He who dare not reason is a coward. Which are you, hcharger? - Mnementh2230, on 11/13/2009, -0/+6"That's what I say about your evolution claim..." you can't just claim they are," yet that is exactly what you are doing."
**WRONG** - I am providing you with evidence which, if you were in the least bit curious or interested in bettering yourself, you could investigate.
"Your evolution theory is nothing but trump up guesses, there is no accurate data that can pin point an exact year, its impossible."
It's not a series of guesses, any more than Germ theory, Aerodynamic theory, or any other scientific theory. You accept those without batting an eye - after all, you wash your hands and see planes flying overhead all the time, but you don't accept Evolutionary Theory, when it has even more evidential backing than many other scientific theories.
As for an exact year, no such thing is required for biological sciences - a logical date range and progression, demonstration that the changes did in fact happen, is quite sufficient.
"What scientists and evolutionists say is speculation, and many times in the past, there were many that couldn't agree with each other to make it anywhere near accurate, let alone true."
They only disagree on details like whether something is a reptile-like-mammal, or a mammal-like-reptile - fiddly details that are only really important to people who are deep in the field. NONE of them disagree on the general principles or the time lines involved. - lydecker, on 11/14/2009, -0/+6"Translation errors could be directly accountable to the results of God's adversary."
So do not trust the Bible because it could contain errors due to God's adversary. Good point. - lydecker, on 11/12/2009, -0/+6How are they discredited? You can't just claim that they are.
How are the conclusions illogical? You can't just claim that they are.
Answer my question, please. Why do you deny evolutionary theory and discredit it without even the slightest notion of what the supporting data is?
Do you have a problem with your own actions? - lydecker, on 11/13/2009, -0/+6"That's what I say about your evolution claim...'you can't just claim they are,' yet that is exactly what you are doing."
No, the theory of evolution is supported by evidence, not by claims only. Whereas you're attempt to say things are discredited and illogical are completely unsupported by evidence, and you've provided none.
"What's there to answer in your question? Your evolution theory is nothing but trump up guesses, there is no accurate data that can pin point an exact year, its impossible."
It's far from trumped up guesses, and carbon dating never claims to pin point an exact year but a range from which the fossil could have originated- and that's all that is necessary. Why do you deny evolutionary theory and discredit it without even the slightest notion of what the supporting data is, as we can see by this statement?
"What scientists and evolutionists say is speculation, and many times in the past, there were many that couldn't agree with each other to make it anywhere near accurate, let alone true."
Theories based on evidence are made to fit the evidence, and more evidence is the only way to refine and correct theories. How does that make evolution false, as you claim? You seem to say here you have no evidence, you just don't want it to be true and due to the nature of all science it could be. Why do you deny evolutionary theory and discredit it without even the slightest notion of what the supporting data is, as we can see by this statement?
"I do not have a problem with my own actions, not at all, that seems to be your problem, not mine but I do have a problem when you try and convince me about a lie that just keeps growing."
Evolutionary theory is not a lie, and by the rest of this statement you prove yourself to be a hypocrite, that you don't have a problem when you deny evolution and attempt to discredit it without the slightest understanding. You've had plenty of opportunity to research it, but you have chosen not to, instead to discredit it without a basic understanding. And you completely lied when you said this statement, because as you've now admitted that doesn't go both ways:
"I do have a problem with people who deny your believe and discredit them without even the slightest notion of what they are talking about, and yes, that goes both ways."
Thank you for proving you are a hypocrite when it comes to this, I figured as much when you avoided answering the question several times. - Mnementh2230, on 11/13/2009, -0/+5"Jehovah has promised it and every word he has uttered out to man-kind has come true."
Oh really...
Genesis:
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
God says that if Adam eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then the day that he does so, he will die. But later Adam eats the forbidden fruit (3:6) and yet lives for another 930 years (5:5). 2:17
As a punishment for killing Abel, God says Cain will be "a fugitive and a vagabond." Yet in just a few verses (4:16-17) Cain will settle down, marry, have a son, and build a city. This is not the activity one would expect from a fugitive and a vagabond. 4:12
God promises Abram and his descendants all of the land of Canaan. But both history and the bible (Acts 7:5 and Heb.11:13) show that God's promise to Abram was not fulfilled. 13:15, 15:18, 17:8, 28:13-14
How long was the Egyptian captivity? This verse says 400 years, but Ex.12:40 and Gal.3:17 say 430 years. 15:13
"In the fourth generation they [Abraham's descendants] shall come hither again." But, if we count Abraham, then their return occurred after seven generations: Abraham, Isaac (Gen.21:1-3), Jacob (Gen.25:19-26), Levi (Gen.35:22-23), Kohath (Ex.6:16), Amramn (Ex.6:18), and Moses (Ex.6:20). 15:16
God promises Abram's descendants the land of Canaan from the Nile to the Euphrates. But according to Acts 7:5 and Heb.11:13 God's promise to Abram was not fulfilled. 15:18
God promises to make Isaac's descendants as numerous as "the stars of heaven", which, of course, never happened (there are more stars in the sky than there have ever been humans). The Jews have always been, and will always be, a small minority. 26:4
God renames Jacob twice (32:28, 35:10 ). God says that Jacob will henceforth be called Israel, but the Bible continues to call him Jacob anyway (47:28-29). And even God himself calls him Jacob in 46:2. 32:28, 35:10
God calls Jacob Jacob, though he said in Gen.32:28 and 35:10 that he would no longer be called Jacob but Israel. 46:2
God promises to bring Jacob safely back from Egypt, but Jacob dies in Egypt (Gen.47:28-29) 46:3
The tribe of Judah will reign "until Shiloh," but Israel's first king (Saul) was from the tribe of Benjamin (Acts 13:21), and most of the time after this prophecy there was no king at all. 49:10
Contrary to the prophecy in 48:21, Joseph died in Egypt, not Israel. Gen.50:24
Exodus
God promises to cast out many nations including the Canaanites and the Jebusites. But he was unable to fulfill his promise. 33:2
In this verse God says he will write on the stone tablets, but in 34:27 he tells Moses to do the writing. 34:1
Numbers
"If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will ... speak unto him in a dream." Now there's a reliable way to communicate with someone! 12:6
Deuteronomy
God promises to cast out seven nations including the Amorites, Canaanites, and the Jebusites. But he was unable to fulfill his promise. 7:1
God says that the Israelites will destroy all of the peoples they encounter. But according to Joshua ( 15:63, 16:10, 17:12-13) and Judges (1:21, 27-36, 3:1-5) there were some people they just couldn't kill. 7:24
Those who do as God says will never be infertile (neither will their cows!) and will never get sick. 7:14-15
False prophets are to be (you guessed it) executed. How do you know who is a false prophet? By whether or not their predictions come true. (Watch out Jehovah's Witnesses - how many times have you folks predicted the wrong date for the end of the world?) 18:20
God promises to "destroy these nations before thee." That he didn't keep his promise see Jos.15:63, 16:10, Jg.1:21, 1:27-36, and 3:1-5. 31:3-6
Joshua
God promises to give Joshua all of the land that his "foot shall tread upon." He says that none of the people he encounters will be able to resist him. But later we find that God didn't keep his promise, and that many tribes withstood Joshua's attempt to steal their land. 1:3-5
Joshua tells the Israelites that God will "without fail" drive out the Canaanites and the Jebusites. But later, the Bible tells us that he could not drive them out. 3:10
This verse says that Ai was never again occupied after it was destroyed by Joshua. But Nehemiah (7:32) lists it among the cities of Israel at the time of the Babylonian captivity. 8:28
God promised the Israelites that he would drive out all the inhabitants of the lands they pass through. But this verse shows that he didn't keep his promise since he couldn't drive out the Jebusites. 15:63
"And they drave not out the Canaanites." Once again God fails keep his promise to destroy all the people the Israelites encounter. 16:10
The Israelites, contrary to God's promises to them, could not drive out the Canaanites. 17:12-13
Joshua tells Manasseh that he will be able to drive out the Canaanites, but it turns out (see Jg.1:27-28) that he couldn't do it. 17:17-18
According to these verses, God fulfilled his promise to give the Israelites all of the lands that they encountered. But in several places the Bible tells us that these promises were not kept. 21:43-45
Judges
God promised many times that he would drive out all the inhabitants of the lands they encountered. But these verses show that God failed to keep his promise since he was unable to drive out the Canaanites. 1:21, 27-30
God promised many times that he would drive out all the inhabitants of the lands they encountered. But these verses show that God failed to keep his promise since he was unable to drive out the Canaanites. 3:1-5
2 Samuel
God says that Solomon's kingdom will last forever. It didn't of course. It was entirely destroyed about 400 years after Solomon's death, never to be rebuilt. 7:13, 16
1 Kings
God puts a "lying spirit" in the mouth of his prophets (shouldn't they therefore be killed?). 22:22
2 Kings
God promises Josiah that he will have a peaceful death. But Josiah's death was anything but peaceful. (2 Kg.23:29-30, 2 Chr.35:23-24) 22:20
I could go on and on... and yeah, not all of it is prophecy from your Jehovah, but it is prophecy in the Bible, and they can't even keep themselves on track in the same book. J.K. Rowling at least managed to keep true to the prophecy she wrote about earlier in the Harry Potter series. - alex7575, on 11/07/2009, -4/+9Irony much?
- lydecker, on 11/12/2009, -0/+5Your claim that they are invalid doesn't make it so. The truth is evident, it stands on it's own.
"Fossils are remains of creatures that lived thousands perhaps millions of years ago, they don't show any workings of evolution at all."
They do when you analyze how long ago each of these fossils come from. We find each fossil represents a creature that was only around during a certain part of Earth's history, and then died off. We find different fossils similar that came before it, and different fossils similar that came after it. There weren't new creations every couple of thousand years that puts new life on the planet, and eliminates old ones, there were species that changed over time due to selective pressures. It makes sense, it's why we see species replace other species that sprung up out of nowhere, it's not a con at all.
What is a con is to believe that every form of life on the planet that ever was was here from one initial creation, or that there have been millions of creation points of new species and deaths of old ones.
"slaves of irrelevant knowledge"
Actually knowledge of evolution is very important in the field of biology, it helps us realize why we have some similar characteristics as other animals and we can learn from their biology as well, to advance the field of medicine. It also helps us understand how bacteria evolve to grow resistant to antibacterials over time and what we can do to prevent that as much as possible. Science is quite helpful.
Answer my question, please. Why do you deny evolutionary theory and discredit it without even the slightest notion of what the supporting data is?
Do you have a problem with your own actions? - Mnementh2230, on 11/14/2009, -0/+5"RIGHT, you have provided me with links written by people who are either atheists or all out evolutionists"
Who else do you expect to study this?!? If I was looking for accurate information about my car, I talk to an expert on the topic - a auto mechanic. If I was looking for accurate information about wood working, I'd talk to a carpenter. **IF I'M LOOKING FOR ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT BIOLOGY, I'LL ASK A BIOLOGIST**. Seriously, who else is going to know this stuff and study it except scientists? All you creationists don't care to know the truth about the world - you've got your Bible Blinders on - you say "god did it, the bible says it, I believe it, end of story" and don't even question it at all.
"and their claims cannot be proven anymore than beyond their laboratory"
Wrong again - the various dating methods are accurate, and have been proven to be so in double blind tests.
" without speculating a species, a year, or even whether a species changed (or evolved as you conveniently address it)"
Species are defined by morphology. Morphology is demonstrated by fossils. Fossils are found in a particular order in the geological strata, which can be dated accurately (the exact year is inconsequential). The fossils show a linear progression of morphology, therefore the fossils show a linear progression of species. This isn't rocket science, this is Logic 101.
" because artists can only conjure up what comes to mind."
*sigh* Once again, you're confusing artists' descriptions with actual scientific study. I'll give you a hint: nobody in the scientific community cares what an artist thinks. An artist will make a picture of a man by looking at a pig tooth, and nobody in the scientific community cares - it is only scientifically illiterate troglodytes like yourself who give it any credibility, because you've never seen a scientific paper in your life. Scientific papers aren't published in Time or Life - there are specific journals dedicated to these things with names you've probably never heard of that peer review the papers before they're ever published.
"There are no photos or records of animal species from 1 to 4 billion years ago to go on to obtain a copy of what they were like."
Why should we need them when we have the fossilized remains? Obviously you're completely ignorant of what these fossils can tell us. I shall refer you, ONCE AGAIN, to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopterix - click the link and look at the damned fossil - it's a REPTILE WITH FEATHERS.
"Your artists who draw up species"
NOBODY CARES WHAT AN ARTIST THINKS, except scientifically illiterate morons like yourself.
"and ones who write books and links strictly for what they believe"
It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of fact. The Theory of Evolution explains the how's and why's of the FACT of evolution.
"your carbon testing for age is unreliable are not evidence"
Carbon dating is only one of several methods of radiometric dating. I shall refer you ONCE AGAIN to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating - click the damn link and ***** educate yourself, fool. Further, watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/user/Potholer54debunks#p/u/ ... - to paraphrase the video "OY! IDIOT! You can't carbon date that! There's NO ***** CARBON IN IT!". It also demonstrates how dishonest creationists are in their attempts to discredit carbon dating.
"Evolutionists have been disagreeing with years, dates, species, human origins, etc. ever since Charles Darwin introduced this garbage back in the 1800,s"
And ONCE AGAIN, none of them disagree on the broad principles, only on a few sticky details.
"You say none of them disagree with the time range, maybe not today, but they sure as hell did in the past"
Who the ***** cares what scientists thought in the past? Science is a SELF CORRECTING PROCESS, unlike your idiotic religious dogma - it adapts to fit the available evidence. We uncovered more evidence, refined the Theory, and moved on. Only creationists like yourself who are completely scientifically illiterate attempt to use such disingenuous arguments. - lydecker, on 11/12/2009, -0/+5"one does not have hope in God, what else is there."
I missed that. I'm sorry you feel that way, but can I ask you first, why you think "hope in God" is something required to have? Do you live all your life in regard to "hope in God," and nothing else? Do you spend time doing anything that isn't motivated by your hope for a God that you enjoy?
Secondly, do you believe people are unable to have "hope in God" and understand the history of our world through evolution? That's not true, I for instance believe in God and understand how species came about on this planet, as do many others. - Mnementh2230, on 11/11/2009, -0/+5Here's a little something that shows that the God of the Bible is a dick... as if we needed any more evidence than the Bible itself:
http://wrongbot.com/index.php?option=com_content&a ... - Mnementh2230, on 11/14/2009, -0/+5"That's why the god of this system of things has blinded your eyes of insight concerning the scriptures, the same way as he has blinded you from truth by giving you the theory of evolution to keep you distracted from the real events that are happening today."
So you're saying your God is a deceiver, a liar. Great - good to know you worship the God of Lies.
...but wait, according to *your* bible, in Titus:
1 Paul, a slave of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ according to the faith of God’s chosen ones and the accurate knowledge of the truth which accords with godly devotion 2 upon the basis of a hope of the everlasting life which God, ***who cannot lie***, promised before times long lasting, 3 whereas in his own due times he made his word manifest in the preaching with which I was entrusted, under command of our Savior, God; 4 to Titus, a genuine child according to a faith shared in common...
Maybe you ought to read your Bible a few more times - you can't even keep yourself in line with it. - Mnementh2230, on 11/13/2009, -0/+5"Tearing apart poorly constructed arguments. A guy makes a couple blunders and he's condemned in your eyes."
Oh goodness no. What's inexcusable is an unwillingness to learn, to even look at evidence, or even attempt to educate one's self.
"You enforce the biggest lie ever inflicted on to mankind and it constantly gets renforced with other lies and that's not poorly constructed arguments!"
You're starting with your assumption that it is a lie in the first place. You've never applied critical thinking skills (if you have any) to your religion, have you? You assume it's correct.
"Of course not, we have the evidence. You have no evidence that will come anywhere near proving the theory of evolution, not a chance."
Then please address the various evidences I've posited - back up your claims.
"How do you know that most of these fossil finds aren't from the same era or another similar species that reflects on another type of animal."
Well, for the Era part, they're in different geological strata (that's layers, for the uneducated) and can be dated by various other methods to different date ranges. For the similar species part - how else would you like to explain the disappearance of a land-based animal that looks like a whale, followed by the seemingly sudden appearance of a very similar land-based animal that has some adaptations for an aquatic life, the that one's disappearance followed by the appearance of a water-based animal that can still go on land, then that disappearance followed by something that looks morphologically much like today's modern whale? All in the age order that the Theory of Evolution predicts, with *all* the morphological changes we would expect, and all in the same geographic area.
"When your finished product is an artists concept, it gets drawn to the imagination of ones who support evolution"
You're confusing the mass media's pandering to the ignorant masses with actual scientific studies and papers. If you don't understand the different, you're even more ignorant than I previously imagined.
"Show me an authentic animal from the million or billion year time-frame, you can't, all you have is fossils and your artists remdition, so here again speculation is all you have, proves nothing."
Sure I can - crocodiles and sharks. They're almost completely unchanged singe the time of the dinosaurs (morphologically) as they're so well adapted for their environments - they're nearly perfect for what they do, and their environments are very stable. - Mnementh2230, on 11/12/2009, -0/+5@sivyr
I share that hope, but in the mean time, I also continue to fight against ignorance as an extra precaution. Reason and critical thinking, I think, are good inoculations against the perils of blind faith. If there's anyone on the fence reading this, perhaps I can convince them that willful ignorance is not worthwhile. Those are the reasons I continue... that, and it's an awful lot of fun tearing apart poorly constructed arguments. - Kestrel, on 11/08/2009, -1/+6Oh shut up... if you're not going to use your brain, please refrain from using your mouth.
- Mnementh2230, on 11/16/2009, -0/+4"They get their information by taking wild speculated guesses"
Demonstrably false. Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. There are no wild speculations or guesses - everything in the Theory of Evolution is supported by multiple lines of inquiry and evidence, peer review (by people who have a vested interest in proving someone wrong), experimentation, and predictions made by the Theory that have been borne out.
"Your illustration of auto mechanic and a carpenter are practical choices, they are not speculated assumptions because you have visions of them before yo"
Neither is Evolutionary Theory - your ignorance of the topic at hand leads you to think so, but you've never studied the topic, so you're completely ignorant of what it says, predicts, and (more to the point) the evidence in support of it.
Basically, you're proving yourself more the fool every time you try to speak to Evolutionary Theory, because there are no guesses, and for those of us who have actually studied the material at hand (or even those of us who have had a high-school level biology education) your protestations are really quite amusing. - Mnementh2230, on 11/13/2009, -0/+4"obtain a bible that is not obsolete"
I looked at the JW bible on a JW website - it's not terribly different. Most of those same problems remain. Look them up yourself, if you have any interest in proving your claims.
"That's why as you read on you find out that the human family in years began to diminish quite rapidly until our day today when an average lifespan is approximately 70-80 years."
And yet our lifespan has been getting longer and longer, on average, over the past several thousand years, and is getting longer (with a corresponding increase to the quality of said life even in the older years) yet as we learn more about biology.
"The correct word is wanderer, even though there are copies who used vagabond. A vagabond does not wander around for life, eventually he settles down in a land of fugitiveness, which in this case was east of Eden."
Anet yet nobody ever details where he found a wife... a somewhat important detail.
"If you are gonna criticize the bibles authenticity, at least try and do it with accurate knowledge"
Nobody has yet to be able to explain to me the whole "animals screwing in front of a striped pole bear striped offspring" claim of the bible, yet... regardless, I'll go find a few of these in your JW bible later and post them here for you to examine.
It seems rather silly to me, however, that you claim I should look at a more "modern" version of the Bible, when the bible is supposed to be the inspired word of your god. You'd think a god would write things down in more concrete terms that are less prone to translation error. As an omnipotent being, he sure isn't in to planning things in advance very well for his worshipers, is he? - lydecker, on 11/15/2009, -0/+4Thank you for failing to cite evidence to back up your claims, I'll take that as rescinding your previous claim. If you would like to back it up, please, DO cite evidence.
You cannot show where their discrepancies lie, or you would have done so and it would have actually made sense.
You feel your faith to be truth with conviction because I have studied faith and been part of many organized religions and churches for the past 40 plus years, and you have not studied evolution at all, only faith.
You claim there is no supporting data of evolution when it's been showed to you many times because you outright deny it without comprehending it because you don't want to understand it.
Of course my faith contradicts your evolutionary claims, and that's why you deny evolution, not because of it's reality or evidence. Creationism and evolution could coincide if the creation point was before evolution occurred, since evolution is supported by evidence.
I know reality is correct and in God's due time, he may show you how correct it is, only thing, you're not gonna like whats coming your way when you spent 40 years of your life devoted to aspects of faith that blind you from reality. Here again God's rule, not mine.
Why do you deny evolutionary theory and discredit it without even the slightest notion of what the supporting data is? Because you are of faith, and you feel being someone of faith you must discredit it without knowing how to? - lydecker, on 11/15/2009, -0/+4You've done it yet again.
Why do you deny evolutionary theory and discredit it without even the slightest notion of what the supporting data is? - sivyr, on 11/12/2009, -1/+5I know you guys like to argue, but I don't know how you can keep it up. hcharger's openly stated that he's allergic to a scientific way of thinking and refuses to stoop to it, in an effort to preserve his faith.
If he wants to believe that science and evolution are tools to turn his faith into sinful corruption, it's up to him, and you're sure as hell not going to convince him of their usefulness. Especially with arguments from science.
When the argument boils down to this, you might as well save your breath. It's better spent conversing with someone less stubborn.
I'll just hope that his mindless fear of scientific progress isn't contagious. - Mnementh2230, on 11/16/2009, -0/+4"Told you before, there is no supporting data,"
Demonstrably false. You're lying.
", they are modern day experiments that can be and have been modified to back up the evolution theory without accountability of truth."
Also demonstrably false. You're lying again.
"there are just as many that discredit the theory of evolution"
None of which are based on evidence.
"Creationism is the only method that gives a practical and sensible explanation as to why we are here"
Sensibility is irrelevant, only verifiable fact is relevant and useful.
" where we are going and what the future holds for obedient man-kind that learns the truth of Jehovah God's purpose."
You assume your god exists without evidence. Illogical, and a logical fallacy.
"Evolution gives nothing in the line of truth or hope"
Nor is it intended to. It is a logical explanation that is supported by every piece of relevant evidence ever collected in every field of relevant science. If you're looking for a PURPOSE, you turn to philosophy. If you're looking for verifiable fact, you look to science. You're looking for comfort, so you've turned to religion.
" Its still crap and everyone who believes the theory of evolution will be made accountable for such a falsehood."
Again with your gleeful death threats. It is quite revealing about the quality of your character. - Mnementh2230, on 11/14/2009, -0/+4You're not exactly clear - you say the God of this system, I assumed you meant the your God, and not some other god, considering Mark 12:32 from your bible "The scribe said to him: “Teacher, you well said in line with truth, ‘***He is One, and there is no other than He***’;"
Are you saying there is more than one God, then? - sivyr, on 11/12/2009, -1/+5@Mnementh
Suit yourself. I'd rather not beat a dead horse as you're just going to be going over the same facts repeatedly.
Personally, I wouldn't expect anyone on the fence to take hcharger that seriously, nor DN or CL, unless they're already conditioned to that mode of thinking.
I don't really believe I can change opinions here on Digg. I do believe that I can make minor points to people who are willing to listen, but without the reinforcement of a more formal education on the subject of evolution, the amount of sway on opinion I expect to have is minimal. I prefer to stick to clarifying generalizations, elaborating on points, criticizing bad logic that people may or may not notice, and occasionally making cynical jokes =P.
After all, how many people walk away from Digg with new perspectives?
I do, actually, but if those I speak to are like me, they probably don't need much convincing. - Chaserloser, on 11/07/2009, -2/+5Comet is like a wiggly sperm looking for to strike Earth-like to fertile.
- lydecker, on 11/16/2009, -0/+3"Told you before, there is no supporting data, even the things you claim are not supporting data, they are modern day experiments that can be and have been modified to back up the evolution theory without accountability of truth."
How have they been modified, and in what way is the modifications make them not accountable to truth? Please cite evidence or cease lying. Your choice.
"Creationism is the only method that gives a practical and sensible explanation as to why we are here, how we got here, where we are going and what the future holds for obedient man-kind that learns the truth of Jehovah God's purpose."
Evolution does too, it gives a practical and sensible explanation that live changes in order to adapt to it's surroundings, that we got here by adaptation and life will continue to survive through adaptation, and that's true for people who believe it or not, as is evident all around us.
"Evolution gives nothing in the line of truth or hope, it is an empty vague article that exaggerates its claims only so its believers do not have to be accountable to God."
Evolution gives much in the lines of truth, and hope is not needed, if you are saying you don't believe reality because somehow it doesn't give you hope, then that is a lacking on your part, not a problem with reality.
It's still not crap and everyone who studies the theory of evolution is proudly accountable for science and studying the earth and how we got here, learning the intricacies of the universe.
Why do you deny evolutionary theory and discredit it without even the slightest notion of what the supporting data or modern day experiments are? Because you are of faith, and you feel being someone of faith you must discredit it without knowing how to? -
Show 51 - 100 of 101 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 