[_ Old Earth _] The fallacy of evolution

[dad]

Atheists deny all religions equally. We debate christianity more as its the main western religion, if I walk outside I'll meet christians preaching on street corners but I would not see a hindu, muslim or jew doing the same. Its just mainly locational.

No, most I have encountered embrace the old ages belief, and evolution, and a hatred of God. They just don't have the kumupins to admit it.


[quote:5944a]Then there is actually no debate, we are just simply using different definitions. We are saying animal = living creature, you say animal = living creature except for humans because we came later.

No they came on the same day, you are dreaming. Also, teaching men came from beasts and are beasts is a part of a system of belief. I bet you believe your relatives were cockcroaches? I find it absurd, diabolical, disgusting, and offensive to my intellect.

"We are unique in our complex thought processes" so obviously thinking about jet planes is a human only characteristic. Feelings are very different to complex thoughts. For example we know animals feel fear, pain, love, hate, lust, anger, pride, joy etc. These can be seen in the wagging dogs tail, the mothers love for her offspring, the cats cry as you tread on his tail, the gorrilas display of power or the cat presenting you a dead mouse. Animals think, animals feel, and we share that in common.

Animals can feel love. God is love. As far as the extent of their other capabilities and what goes on in their heads, I think you may be assuming some things here. Either way, we are somewhat similar in some ways to animals, we are not animals. If evo based science has classed them all together, that is their problem, and religious statement. They are dead wrong.

I guess you've got a different definition of free will then? I would simply think it means you have the ability to do as you please.

No one has that, not to a graet extent. WE have the ability to choose God, or the devil, and going away from God. He doesn't force us to obey like robots.

Lets check the handy dictionary: "Done of one's own accord; voluntary"
Yes the lion wanders where it wants, kills want it wants, does as it pleases. This is complete freewill by this definition. Please let me know how your definition differs from the norm.

God is in my definition.

Not at all. We are taught right from wrong, and we accept societies definitions on these. Years ago slavery was common, it was not considered wrong, nowdays we would be horrified by it.

I am horrified at the soul slavery of the devil, and the refusal to let the captives of the lie go free. Guess God 'll have to bust em out.

During the Roman times they ran blood games, people killed by wild animals or other people for the pleasure of the crowd. Tens of thousands of people packing stands to watch the show. It was not considered wrong, it was the social norm and that was the way it was taught.

They were demonic pagans. Not much has changed. More and more as men grow more wicked, and pagan, these things go on again.

Is it wrong to execute by stoning? Is it wrong to duel with pistols or swords? Is it wrong to drink alcohol? Is it wrong to smoke? Your answers to these questions are based on what you've been taught and what society says. Ask the Taliban the same questions and you'll get very different replies.

[/quote:5944a]

If you want to get into laws and shiboleths, there is a wide opinion, based on the group of people and their beliefs. This doesn't much relate to the inherant understanding of good and evil we come with at birth, in any culture. Address the issue, why nit pick?

 

[Loren Michael]

when looking at the evidence, that is the only conclusion that one comes to. by definition it is supported, as the idea is borne of the same evidence.

The conclusion something is supported can only come if something is supported, and you cannot support a future or past that will be or was only as the present is, physical only. The only support possible fot that claim is your belief, nothing else. We cannot say, because it is a certain way now it always was and will be that certain way, just because we think it might be, of feel it likely must be so. Evidence, evidence evidence, and you have none! We have lots of evidence for real science, magnetism, -things stick. -Gravity, -things that go up come down, etc. For your fantasy futeure, none at all, it in strictly and purely your belief. Coincedentally, all old ages are based on this unsupportable belief!

for science to recognize that an alterration of the universe is probable or even possible, there mush be evidence as such. it is assumed that there are no unicorns because there is no evidence for unicorns. until there is evidence as such, it is natural to operate under the assumption that the rules that govern the universe have always held true.

[quote:9405a]considering that claim has not been made, there is no need to do so. evidence merely gives support to the notion that the universe has pretty much always obeyed a certain set of laws. no evidence has risen to the contrary, so the idea is not approached.

But no evidence says the universe always operated under only the laws of physics, you are mistaken. That is assumption only. We can say that as long as the universe was physical only, and we (you) don't know how long that was by any evidence, PO laws applied. This is true. [/quote:9405a]
it is only prudent to operate under that assumption until evidence comes to light that it is not so. it is a correct assessment that there is no evidence that the universe has always operated as we know it now. based on the nature of evidence, however, that evidence can not exist. it is analogous to, if you can pardon the silly analogy, evidence that Paris Hilton will never turn into a goat. it is held to near-absolute certainty that she will not, because there is no known evidence to indicate that ever happening. there is no evidence concerning this though- only what we know of how the universe works now.

But not any issue under scrutiny, because we all know this, at least more or less, we think we do. Light cannot have drastically changed speeds, for example, because the effects on the rest of the universe would be apparent (at least so they say). But the point is, that if there were a seperation of the spiritual from the physical at some point, all we would be able to detect is the physical only, because we cannot understand the merged eternal universe, and the spiritual component. WE would see, as we do, just the light that can exist in the physical only universe, and was left here at the split. We could not detect the former merged pre split light! And etc.

there is no known evidence that that will happen or has ever happened. that does not mean that science holds it as not possible. it is merely regarded as unknown and untouchable- no evidence means that it cannot be approached by science.

[quote:9405a]until evidence arises that supports another idea, we limit ourselves to what we know of it. science is not given to wild speculation. in this way it is supported.

Oh yes it is, look at granny and the speck, no one has a clue where they supposedly came from. Look at your claim the future must be physical only, just because it now is!! Unsupportable, wild claim. Better to just admit you have no idea, and do not know, cause you don't, you just think, assume and believe.[/quote:9405a]
all of those notions are only present because of the evidence that has given credence to their idea. they are brough forth by examination of existing evidence, and carrying the knowledge to its logical conclusion.

[quote:9405a]all that is being taught is what the evidence reveals. if the evidence gave a strong indication for a creation-based origin, that would be reflected in what is taught.

If they could detect creation remnants that might be true, but creation- if occuring in the complete, eternal merged universe, was not in a physical only present universe we see! How could you detect it? All you can cetect is physical things, and assume that that is all there everwas or will be. That is ridiculous. Your belief in this, and it's implications of old age, granny bacteria, the creator speck, etc. are just belief based. [/quote:9405a]
science has no business with the undetectable. science is totally useless to examine it. so it does not. if there is evidence for something, it will approach it. the notions that you speak of were addressed earlier in this post and thread.

You have no right to use your belief, and call it part of scienvce, pushing other beliefs out, and terrorizing children with your teachings in the name of science, but only falsely so called! 'Hey kids, the bible is wrong, no eternal heavens can exist, you're all gonna die, and God didn't create it in a week, it was billions of years ago, and a little speck. Oh, and children, we all came from a germ, or lifeform, and the sun will burn out one day, and we live on a meaningless speck of a meaningless planet, and we are all beasts and animals.' All based on the core belief of claiming with no possible support that the physical universe will always be all there is.

belief has no place in science. only what is known, only what has evidence. science does not deal in the meaning of life, but leaves it to other schools of thought. it merely examines evidence.

[quote:9405a]no evidence has been found of an unnatural history, and no evidence has been found that would lead to the idea of an unnatural future. hence, the paradigm is not expected to change.

Thats what you think! Your unnatural claims of a death and decaying eternity are not supportable, and bogus. All that is needed is for the christian majority to tune in to the fact that the old ages you preach are strictly belief based, and not science. If that fails, the rule of Christ is coming soon anyhow, and all will be made right in very very short order, of this you can be sure.[/quote:9405a]
knowledge of the past and future are based only on evidence, and are thus supportable. the veracity of the evidence could be called into question, but unsupportive conclusions are unlikely, as there is a good deal of stringent examination of said evidence whenever it is used. in addition, science does not seek majority opinion. it seeks positive test results.

OK, do you admit that there is a spiritual?

i have not observed one, to the best of my knowledge.

[quote:9405a]the evidence for the claim, which has been discussed, is what gave rise to the notion of an ancient universe in science.

What evidence has been discussed? I have not so much seen a single thing on offer here in the least way applicable?!! Let me be clear, you have none, and never will, so stop making false claims! The new heavens that are eternal are coming, and these ones will pass away, I gurantee you have no supported case against this absolute.[/quote:9405a]
knowledge of the speed of light, physical sciences, and the motion of celestial bodies has been discussed. i don't purport to have a case against anything absolute.

[quote:9405a]notions of the past and future are intrinsically bonded to the evidence that bore them.

Does this come with english subtitles? There is no evidence of either a merged or physical only past or future. Word games don't do it![/quote:9405a]
what is known of the past and future is based on evidence, and came about within science because of the evidence. no word games intended. i apologize.

 

[Guest]

"We are unique in our complex thought processes" so obviously thinking about jet planes is a human only characteristic. Feelings are very different to complex thoughts. For example we know animals feel fear, pain, love, hate, lust, anger, pride, joy etc. These can be seen in the wagging dogs tail, the mothers love for her offspring, the cats cry as you tread on his tail, the gorrilas display of power or the cat presenting you a dead mouse. Animals think, animals feel, and we share that in common.

Animals can feel love. God is love. As far as the extent of their other capabilities and what goes on in their heads, I think you may be assuming some things here. Either way, we are somewhat similar in some ways to animals, we are not animals. If evo based science has classed them all together, that is their problem, and religious statement. They are dead wrong.

How can a classification system be "wrong?"

It's not possible. It's a subjective system. Saying the classification system is "wrong" is like saying the Dewey Decimal System is wrong. I guess German Etymology isn't 432, huh? What is it? What number does God say German Etymology should be? I must have missed the part of the Bible where Moses descended from the Mount and said "German Etymology shalt be 431, and no other."

Seriously, what you're saying is that classifying humans with other creatures who have nervous systems, intake oxygen, have CO2 as a waste product, and a few other, very general things in common, is wrong. You're saying that humans are fungus. Is that really what you want to be saying?

 

[dad]

How can a classification system be "wrong?"

It's not possible. It's a subjective system. Saying the classification system is "wrong" is like saying the Dewey Decimal System is wrong..

If humans were animals it would be right. They aren't, so what does that make it? You can class them with oceans, cars, or meteors if you like, that don't make it so. All it denotes is a common misconception of science which is physical only, and can't see past it's PO nose on it's PO face! It is an in box classification, with an evo oriented, and based taint. It is a religious view, in the sense it is a belief that similarities with other creations mean it must be lumped together. I don't share your belief system that we are beasts, are related to beasts in any way, and must be put in the same boat.

[quote:14bb8]Seriously, what you're saying is that classifying humans with other creatures who have nervous systems, intake oxygen, have CO2 as a waste product, and a few other, very general things in common, is wrong. You're saying that humans are fungus. Is that really what you want to be saying?

[/quote:14bb8]

Is your mind slipping here? Read my posts again, nowhere do I say humans are fungus. Ridiculous.

 

[dad]

for science to recognize that an alterration of the universe is probable or even possible, there mush be evidence as such

.

For me to believe God was wrong, and that your fantasy future of dark death exists, only as the physical only present, there mush be evidence as such. You have none. Your belief just will not do, since you cannot support it with science or anything else!!![quote:41442]
it is assumed that there are no unicorns because there is no evidence for unicorns. until there is evidence as such, it is natural to operate under the assumption that the rules that govern the universe have always held true.

I assume there are no unicorns, creator specks, or magically appearing first lifeforms, nor your future that is physical only. And why should I?!!! Ridiculous.

it is only prudent to operate under that assumption until evidence comes to light that it is not so.

Glad to hear that, because that is exactly how I operate! Now, until your fantasy death future that is physical only can be supported with evidence, consider yourself falsified!

it is a correct assessment that there is no evidence that the universe has always operated as we know it now.

Halelujah! Let the bells ring! Everyone hear this guy admit the core foundational premise for all old age dating, in all branches of learning, this past and future that is physical only, like the present---has "NO EVIDENCE"!!!!!

based on the nature of evidence, however, that evidence can not exist. it is analogous to, if you can pardon the silly analogy, evidence that Paris Hilton will never turn into a goat. it is held to near-absolute certainty that she will not, because there is no known evidence to indicate that ever happening. there is no evidence concerning this though- only what we know of how the universe works now.

Despite you, in ignorance of the unknown future, and assumptions that the present PO will exist, which you believe to be as certain as Miss Hilton not turning into a goat- the fact remains, you have no evidence to back up your belief!! Gottcha!

there is no known evidence that that will happen or has ever happened. that does not mean that science holds it as not possible. it is merely regarded as unknown and untouchable- no evidence means that it cannot be approached by science.

Right, you are unable to approach any other possibility than those that are in the box of the physical only! This is understandable. Nevertheless you cannot claim your beliefs you cannot evidence of the unkown future to be science. So get it out of the darn classroom, shall we!

all of those notions are only present because of the evidence that has given credence to their idea

.

In english, this means all these fantasies exist on a physical only past belief. Yes, I know this.

they are brough forth by examination of existing evidence, and carrying the knowledge to its logical conclusion.

Only if one considers a baseless unsupportable belief as logical, or it's conclusions. If we start accepting beliefs, then move over PO pasters and fantasy futurists, cause we got some countries with millions of christians whao have very solid tested beliefs that outrank baselesss ones, and outvote them.

science has no business with the undetectable. science is totally useless to examine it. so it does not.

Amen! preach it!

if there is evidence for something, it will approach it.

Yes it will, such as if your Po future belief had evidence, science could approach it. Now, it is falsely so called science only. Time to flush.

belief has no place in science. only what is known, only what has evidence.

Great, let's move quickly on this. The belief that the past was PO, and only as the present has no place in science. Let's expunge it pronto!

science does not deal in the meaning of life, but leaves it to other schools of thought. it merely examines evidence.

My point exactly.

knowledge of the past and future are based only on evidence, and are thus supportable.

False. Observations of the present are not observations of the past. Decay now does not mean there always will be decay. It means things now decay. Evidemce of decay is not evidence of the past or future. Assuming the process into either time is only assumptions about present observations not evidence of the past or future.

the veracity of the evidence could be called into question, but unsupportive conclusions are unlikely, as there is a good deal of stringent examination of said evidence whenever it is used.

All under the belief that the PO always was and will be belief, which is false, bogus, and unsupportable.

in addition, science does not seek majority opinion. it seeks positive test results.

Good, show us test results that say the future will see the sun burn out, and always be physical only.

knowledge of the speed of light, physical sciences, and the motion of celestial bodies has been discussed. i don't purport to have a case against anything absolute.

Physical only present universe light speed or properties is fine for the present. Only your belief tries to apply this inapplicable sameness to the future. Do not pretend there is evidence for that. All evidence we have is for the present Po universe, nothing more. Nothing holds the past or future to this temporal soon to pass away universe but your imagination.

what is known of the past and future is based on evidence, and came about within science because of the evidence. no word games intended. i apologize.

[/quote:41442]

Well, what you think you know about the future and past is not based on evidence. It is based solely on the present, and evidences of how it now works. No connection other than your assumptions belief and imagination can exist.

(My the evos are well behaved in this forum!)

 

[Frost Giant]

Congratulations on stating the obvious. Science works on the assumption that tomorrow, all of the laws of the universe might completely change, but the chances of such are so low it's much safer to assume that the laws will remain the same. And the laws have remained the same every day for the past 13 billion years.

 

[Loren Michael]

for science to recognize that an alterration of the universe is probable or even possible, there mush be evidence as such

.
For me to believe God was wrong, and that your fantasy future of dark death exists, only as the physical only present, there mush be evidence as such. You have none. Your belief just will not do, since you cannot support it with science or anything else!!!

No one is saying that god is wrong. all that is known is what is gleaned from the evidence. there is no belief.

[quote:2932b] it is assumed that there are no unicorns because there is no evidence for unicorns. until there is evidence as such, it is natural to operate under the assumption that the rules that govern the universe have always held true.

I assume there are no unicorns, creator specks, or magically appearing first lifeforms, nor your future that is physical only. And why should I?!!! Ridiculous.[/quote:2932b]
i'm sorry- i should have clarified. in science, patterns are sought- that is, if it is observed that something happens under the right circumstances, it is assumed that those circumstances will always hold true, as long as nothing disrupts the process. similarly, it is possible to use a pattern to acquire new knowledge or information. predicting new elements on the periodic table, species previously unknown, etcetera.

[quote:2932b]it is only prudent to operate under that assumption until evidence comes to light that it is not so.

Glad to hear that, because that is exactly how I operate! Now, until your fantasy death future that is physical only can be supported with evidence, consider yourself falsified![/quote:2932b]
the knowledge of the future is only what has been gathered from evidence. all that is assumed is the laws that govern the universe will remain constent. there is as yet no evidence to the contrary, so the laws as we know them remain the same.

[quote:2932b]it is a correct assessment that there is no evidence that the universe has always operated as we know it now.

Halelujah! Let the bells ring! Everyone hear this guy admit the core foundational premise for all old age dating, in all branches of learning, this past and future that is physical only, like the present---has "NO EVIDENCE"!!!!![/quote:2932b]
to be fair, there is no evidence to the contrary, either. considering the nature of laws in science, they are not prone to changing on a whim- as thus, the evidence that must be found (if one is to bring premises into dispute) is positive evidence that the universe has had different laws governing it in the past.

[quote:2932b]they are brought forth by examination of existing evidence, and carrying the knowledge to its logical conclusion.

Only if one considers a baseless unsupportable belief as logical, or it's conclusions.[/quote:2932b]
because the idea is rooted in and borne of evidence, it is well supported. there are no beliefs.

[quote:2932b]if there is evidence for something, it will approach it.

Yes it will, such as if your Po future belief had evidence, science could approach it. Now, it is falsely so called science only. Time to flush.[/quote:2932b]
this was answered above, and in previous posts.

[quote:2932b]knowledge of the past and future are based only on evidence, and are thus supportable.

False. Observations of the present are not observations of the past. Decay now does not mean there always will be decay. It means things now decay. Evidemce of decay is not evidence of the past or future. Assuming the process into either time is only assumptions about present observations not evidence of the past or future.[/quote:2932b]
this was answered earlier in this post.

[quote:2932b]the veracity of the evidence could be called into question, but unsupportive conclusions are unlikely, as there is a good deal of stringent examination of said evidence whenever it is used.

All under the belief that the PO always was and will be belief, which is false, bogus, and unsupportable.[/quote:2932b]
no beliefs are held. hence, that belief is not held. that belief has not been stated in any of these posts.

[quote:2932b]in addition, science does not seek majority opinion. it seeks positive test results.

Good, show us test results that say the future will see the sun burn out, and always be physical only.[/quote:2932b]
the sun is a star. stars dont last forever. ergo, the sun will not last forever.

Physical only present universe light speed or properties is fine for the present. Only your belief tries to apply this inapplicable sameness to the future. Do not pretend there is evidence for that. All evidence we have is for the present Po universe, nothing more. Nothing holds the past or future to this temporal soon to pass away universe but your imagination.

nothing is imagined. the relationship of the past and future relative to the present has been discussed.

[quote:2932b]what is known of the past and future is based on evidence, and came about within science because of the evidence. no word games intended. i apologize.

Well, what you think you know about the future and past is not based on evidence. It is based solely on the present, and evidences of how it now works. No connection other than your assumptions belief and imagination can exist.[/quote:2932b]
evidence is all there is to science. such ideas would not exist without evidence. i have not stated my beliefs or assumptions.

 

[Guest]

How can a classification system be "wrong?"

It's not possible. It's a subjective system. Saying the classification system is "wrong" is like saying the Dewey Decimal System is wrong..

If humans were animals it would be right. They aren't, so what does that make it? You can class them with oceans, cars, or meteors if you like, that don't make it so. All it denotes is a common misconception of science which is physical only, and can't see past it's PO nose on it's PO face! It is an in box classification, with an evo oriented, and based taint. It is a religious view, in the sense it is a belief that similarities with other creations mean it must be lumped together. I don't share your belief system that we are beasts, are related to beasts in any way, and must be put in the same boat.

...

So, you're saying that humans don't inhale oxygen, and exhale CO2? That they don't get their nutrients from consuming other organisms? That they don't have a nervous system? Because that is what you're arguing.

Yeah, the classification system is purely physical. Absolutely. It is physical, observable, and objective. If something has X qualities, then it is a Y. You're seriously arguing from a perspective of the Dark Ages, here.

Seriously, what you're saying is that classifying humans with other creatures who have nervous systems, intake oxygen, have CO2 as a waste product, and a few other, very general things in common, is wrong. You're saying that humans are fungus. Is that really what you want to be saying?

Is your mind slipping here? Read my posts again, nowhere do I say humans are fungus. Ridiculous.

Oh, I'm sorry. Did you mean humans are bacteria? Plants? Protists? Because those are the options.

 

[dad]

Congratulations on stating the obvious. Science works on the assumption that tomorrow, all of the laws of the universe might completely change, but the chances of such are so low it's much safer to assume that the laws will remain the same.

I never suggested some change in PO universe laws happening for some luck of the draw reason. No chance involved. It's design. Planned obselesance! And, yes, nothing you can say about it. Except your beliefs.

[quote:46b6f]And the laws have remained the same every day for the past 13 billion years.

[/quote:46b6f]

You are very sadly and totally mistaken here. The reason such errant conclusions were arrived at is only the assumption all things continue as they are and always will. They won't, the bible is clear. And it is obvious science has nothing whatsoever it can say about it.

 

[Frost Giant]

Science has nothing to say about it? Science says that if there's no evidence everything will change tomorrow, then in all probability, they won't. It's a sort of rework of the Burden of Proof. If you have no evidence that things will completely change, then they won't.

Your logic is very flawed. Since we can't be sure that conditions in the past were the same as they were today, and since we can't be sure that future conditions will be the same as they are today, all Bible-contradicting science is wrong?

Why stop there? Since, according to you, the laws of the universe can simply change, couldn't God simply cease to exist too? We know that today, matter cannot be created or destroyed, but who's to say it was that way in the past? The fact that you fail to acknowledge these posibilities is yet more evidence that you don't actually care about the truth, and only care about proving the Bible true.

 

[dad]

...
So, you're saying that humans don't inhale oxygen, and exhale CO2? That they don't get their nutrients from consuming other organisms? That they don't have a nervous system? Because that is what you're arguing.

Yeah, the classification system is purely physical. Absolutely.

Yeah. That makes it impossible for a proper classification of man as a special created seperate creation! You only look at base things, and therefore are classification challenged! We're special! We are it! We're tops! We are the reason all the stars were made! WE are the place the city of the Almighty Living God is going to land, and He will live forever! Your wacky little idea that we are related to rats and germs, and cockcroaches is as baseless as it is sick!


[quote:17df5]It is physical, observable, and objective. If something has X qualities, then it is a Y. You're seriously arguing from a perspective of the Dark Ages, here.

You have no idea at all what you are talking about. WE are in the dark ages, that make the dark ages look light! We are entering, and in, the darkest age of human history!

Oh, I'm sorry. Did you mean humans are bacteria? Plants? Protists? Because those are the options.

[/quote:17df5]

Those are your twisted imagination's options! Nothing to do with us masters of the world, made in God's Own image! We are who He Personally breathed the breath of life into! He formed and fashioned us HImself, and endowed us with the majesty of free choice. Not to raom the pastures, and chose where to walk, but to chose life or death. WE have access to the eternal life of God! God gave Hid only Son to come and die a horrible death for us, us us. Not for swamp slime! Not for chimps! Don't be a chump.

 

[Frost Giant]

I think dad simply is afraid of being related to animals, to being an animal. He is simply afraid of not being "above" every other species.

 

[Heidi]

...
So, you're saying that humans don't inhale oxygen, and exhale CO2? That they don't get their nutrients from consuming other organisms? That they don't have a nervous system? Because that is what you're arguing.

Yeah, the classification system is purely physical. Absolutely.

Yeah. That makes it impossible for a proper classification of man as a special created seperate creation! You only look at base things, and therefore are classification challenged! We're special! We are it! We're tops! We are the reason all the stars were made! WE are the place the city of the Almighty Living God is going to land, and He will live forever! Your wacky little idea that we are related to rats and germs, and cockcroaches is as baseless as it is sick!


[quote:ea5dc]It is physical, observable, and objective. If something has X qualities, then it is a Y. You're seriously arguing from a perspective of the Dark Ages, here.

You have no idea at all what you are talking about. WE are in the dark ages, that make the dark ages look light! We are entering, and in, the darkest age of human history!


[quote:ea5dc]Oh, I'm sorry. Did you mean humans are bacteria? Plants? Protists? Because those are the options.

Those are your twisted imagination's options! Nothing to do with us masters of the world, made in God's Own image! We are who He Personally breathed the breath of life into! He formed and fashioned us HImself, and endowed us with the majesty of free choice. Not to raom the pastures, and chose where to walk, but to chose life or death. WE have access to the eternal life of God! God gave Hid only Son to come and die a horrible death for us, us us. Not for swamp slime! Not for chimps! Don't be a chump.[/quote:ea5dc][/quote:ea5dc]

You're absolutely right. Saying that humans are the product of an animal and a human (which is what the common ancestor is) is not only embarrassingly ludicrous, it is perverted. :evil:

 

[Loren Michael]

untruths. and a fitting ":evil:"

your relentless misunderstanding and misrepresentation is appreciated by some, i'm sure- but this is not a chat thread.

 

[dad]

I think dad simply is afraid of being related to animals, to being an animal. He is simply afraid of not being "above" every other species.

No need to fear that. We rule! A far cry from being beasts, and meaningless, and thinking we are related to dung beetles!

 

[dad]

Science has nothing to say about it?

No, it doesn't not the faintest peep possible!

[quote:72f17]Science says that if there's no evidence everything will change tomorrow, then in all probability, they won't.

And if there is no evidence that things will never change, then it is merely an unknown. Don't dare pretend it isn't.

It's a sort of rework of the Burden of Proof. If you have no evidence that things will completely change, then they won't.

You have no evidence they were always the same so they weren't according to your evidence, as much as they were. In other words, you have no clue. Nothing to say it must always be PO. Nothing at all.

Your logic is very flawed. Since we can't be sure that conditions in the past were the same as they were today, and since we can't be sure that future conditions will be the same as they are today, all Bible-contradicting science is wrong?

Nothing flawed about that! It's a fact. You can't be sure of the far past or the future. So stick to real science and stick to the present, where you do have some clue what you are talking about.

Why stop there? Since, according to you, the laws of the universe can simply change, couldn't God simply cease to exist too?

They can't simply change unless God the creator changes them. Relax.

We know that today, matter cannot be created or destroyed, but who's to say it was that way in the past?

I give up, who?

The fact that you fail to acknowledge these posibilities is yet more evidence that you don't actually care about the truth, and only care about proving the Bible true.

[/quote:72f17]
The fact that you don't know what you are talking about, in regards to the universe being the same or different in God's tommorow is all the facts we need to know! The rest is your Godless opinion, which is worthless!

 

[Wertbag]

Giant, do you get the same mental image of dad? An old man sitting in front of his computer with his fingers in his ears yelling "I'm not listening, LA LA LA... they're not talking to me anymore, I win, I win!" ?

<sigh> and the return of Heidi with the same strange ideas... "Saying that humans are the product of an animal and a human" where does that come from? This obsession with beastiality has nothing to do with evolution as has been pointed out several times. Inter-species relations would invalidate evolution as evolution says that is not how things occur.

No, most I have encountered embrace the old ages belief, and evolution, and a hatred of God. They just don't have the kumupins to admit it.

Yes atheists believe in an old earth as that is what every branch of science agrees and what the evidence shows. Same for evolution, after decades of debate and investiagation it has withstood the questions and the evidence found and being found matches what we expect to see. But a hatred of God is not a belief held by atheists. Atheists do not believe in a supernatural being, you cannot hate what doesn't exist.

No they came on the same day, you are dreaming. Also, teaching men came from beasts and are beasts is a part of a system of belief. I bet you believe your relatives were cockcroaches? I find it absurd, diabolical, disgusting, and offensive to my intellect.

Nice close minded statement... do I believe my relatives were cockroaches? Evolution says we came from more simple organisms, I don't find this offensive to my intellect, and whether it was a roach, mouse, fly or bacteria really doesn't effect me now millions of years later.

No one has that, not to a graet extent. WE have the ability to choose God, or the devil, and going away from God. He doesn't force us to obey like robots.
God is in my definition.

Great, at least I know where I stand. Your definition of freewill is simply the ability to pick a religion from amongst the thousands of choices. It is true animals do not build temples, do not sacrifice to unseen beings and have no signs of belief in anything otherworldly. Therefore your personal definition does put humans apart from the animals...
Of course no matter which religion if any is correct the majority of the worlds population is wrong. You believe the choice is between God and satan, yet there is a definate lack of evidence to show any particular religion is correct over the others.

They were demonic pagans. Not much has changed. More and more as men grow more wicked, and pagan, these things go on again.

Not much has changed? Since burning at the stake, feeding people to the lions, and gladiator games? I would disagree with that, as society does not stand for such brutality now when two thousand years ago it was the norm.
Their evil was not considered such and was not taught as such. There was no magicial good/evil meter in their brains that said "this is wrong". Good and evil are taught and what is allowed from one culture to another shows this time and time again.

This doesn't much relate to the inherant understanding of good and evil we come with at birth, in any culture. Address the issue, why nit pick?

Guess you didn't read my post? There is no inherant understanding of good and evil, it is all taught and all based on what society allows. You can teach a child from birth to be a suicide bomber and that killing himself and others is good. He and many others will do it, and while it is obviously pure evil he will not think so and neither will the parents that taught him. An inherant understanding of good and evil would stop such things from occuring, it doesn't because it doesn't exist.

 

[Frost Giant]

Frost Giant casts Logic.
Dad resists!

You assume a creator exists. Science doesn't. Things break down when you try to make science fit your predetermined worldview.

Maybe the laws of the universe were different back then. Who can change them? God can! Science doesn't assume God because, well, it isn't religion.

 

[Quadeshet]

An inherant understanding of good and evil would stop such things from occuring, it doesn't because it doesn't exist.

I think this is the problem when it comes to evolution and life-denying religions. Evolution is about as cold as it gets- there is no good and no evil in the sense people are brought up to believe. So, people want life to be about triumph, to be about making it all mean something.

Life does mean something: it's awesome that you exist.

It's fabulous that your mind and body are so well adapted to its environment that we can sit around and ponder what it all means. Someday it will not be so.
We are not the pinnacle of a progression towards a human-centric world, but a population of genetic information that represents one bud on a family tree stretching back billions of years. This is the beauty of evolution.

 

[dad]

Yes atheists believe in an old earth as that is what every branch of science agrees and what the evidence shows.

Sorry you were misinformed. No evidence exists that says the future will be physical only at all. I call you on this. Put up, if you dare.

[quote:9369b]Same for evolution, after decades of debate and investiagation it has withstood the questions and the evidence found and being found matches what we expect to see.

Same with creation, it matches the evidence.

But a hatred of God is not a belief held by atheists. Atheists do not believe in a supernatural being, you cannot hate what doesn't exist.

So you say, but I know better. In many cases, it is a hatred of God dressed in unbelief. If anyone, the bible says really did not in their heart believe in God, they would literally be out of their mind, or a 'fool'.

Nice close minded statement... do I believe my relatives were cockroaches? Evolution says we came from more simple organisms, I don't find this offensive to my intellect, and whether it was a roach, mouse, fly or bacteria really doesn't effect me now millions of years later.

God help us all. I always get a chill at the sad state of man when I hear one of you guys admit you think your relatives were cockcroaches.

Great, at least I know where I stand. Your definition of freewill is simply the ability to pick a religion from amongst the thousands of choices.

Not religion, no. Accept or reject Love, and His Son.

Not much has changed? Since burning at the stake, feeding people to the lions, and gladiator games?

How many are killed in violent sports now, compared with Rome? How many in wars? How many babies are cut down in abortions? How many people are burned with bombs, terrorism, and womd? Beneath the veneer, the heart of man is the same, and worse.

I would disagree with that, as society does not stand for such brutality now when two thousand years ago it was the norm.

Have you heard in Russia some are paid to fight to the death? I have heard from such a fighter. Was Abu gray, or whatever it was called in Iraq civilized? How about the Hiroshima bomb? A few gladiators pale in comparison.

Their evil was not considered such and was not taught as such. There was no magicial good/evil meter in their brains that said "this is wrong". Good and evil are taught and what is allowed from one culture to another shows this time and time again.

We will have to disagree. I say we are born with a concience.

Guess you didn't read my post? There is no inherant understanding of good and evil, it is all taught and all based on what society allows. You can teach a child from birth to be a suicide bomber and that killing himself and others is good. He and many others will do it, and while it is obviously pure evil he will not think so and neither will the parents that taught him. An inherant understanding of good and evil would stop such things from occuring, it doesn't because it doesn't exist.

[/quote:9369b]

We make choices, and some harden their 'ears' to concience, and follow their dark choices where they lead.