You really don't know what the hell you're talking about with regard to science, and you're playing that sick, hateful moralizing game of the christians. Human beans have been around for millions of years, and hundreds of thousands of years as homo sapiens sapiens--your silly superstition has not even made it to two thousand years yet. The human race has survived, and prospered, and accomplished wonders of science and the accumulation of knowledge without the aid of and often despite the interference of christians. There can be no sin unless your "god" exists, and you've not demonstrated that. It's certainly no skin off my nose if you believe those fairy tales, but you have no business attempting to impose them on others, and the disgusting part is for christians to bang on about morality, especially when one considers all the damage and horror visited on the world by the adherents of what is essentially an authoritarian and power-mad world view.
You don't actually have anything to say about the science behind evolution do you? Vague comments about what one has to take on faith don't qualify, because you don't substantiate your claim. I've never seen any evidence here that you know enough about science to comment.
Since "sin" is a religious law, and one of the commandment is "thou shalt not kill," but there are other instructions in the bible that any unbeliever must be killed, how does one reconcile this contradiction? From evilbible;
The act of murder is rampant in the Bible. In much of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, there are laws that command that people be killed for absurd reasons such as working on the Sabbath, being gay, cursing your parents, or not being a virgin on your wedding night. In addition to these crazy and immoral laws, there are plenty of examples of God’s irrationality by his direct killing of many people for reasons that defy any rational explanation such as killing children who make fun of bald people, and the killing of a man who tried to keep the ark of God from falling during transport. There are also countless examples of mass murders commanded by God, including the murder of women, infants, and children.
Geez CI, I guess this is why Jeremiah wrote ‘those who seek the truth will find the truth when it is sought with all their heart...’
There is almost absolutely no truth in what anything you just said.
The big commandment which you cited about not killing could not be further from the truth. The big commandment is Thou shall not MURDER. Killing can be morally justified.
Flat. Out. Wrong.
You have clearly not spent more than 2 seconds trying to seek the truth, which is why you (and others) come up with this stuff (and evolutionism)
You have also taken partial truths and twisted them, taking things outta context to create a completely inaccurate picture of things.
Why did God command putting such ppl to death? Like the ‘bald man’ Scenario(one of my favs) ....,you paint a picture of what u want to see....anything but the truth. You have not sought the truth here. Or anywhere. It’s obvious.
I’m thinking it was a sort of illusion aimed at leading the first two ppl on earth astray.
Now, well now we have ‘the serpent’ using things like Islam, evolutionism, Mormonism, etc.....and ppl like yourself to lead others astray. You are being deceived and used.
And in addition to seeking the truth and finding the truth, when sought with all your heart is this:
I cannot spend the time one on one with every person in the world, especially people who do not want to hear the truth, never mind embrace it
Tue 10 Jul, 2018 08:27 pm
The funny thing about all you bullshit artists is that for some dumass reason you believe that only your Bullshit is the correct Bullshit. Everyone elses is evil Bullshit. You realize how stupid all that sounds when you castigate other Christian cults like some shaman ?
Why not go and learn something useful?? Nobody has ever solved any problems by employing religious BS, and ALL the wars and pogroms you guys start. Persecution of natives in "order to save their souls" sound pretty mindless to me.
AT least science can give you a job and a career.
Tue 10 Jul, 2018 09:43 pm
Since they're already grossed out of their minds, it doesn't matter which language is spoken. Somehow god is able to make them understand his language starting with the ten commandments and the following contradictions.
Tue 10 Jul, 2018 11:53 pm
You failed to seek the truth here to it seems,
"TRUTH" is all subjective. Facts are what we want, gimme facts.
Wed 11 Jul, 2018 05:04 am
Was debating whether to add anything else to one of your previous posts. To your statement about mass murders of men women and children Commanded by God.
I find it interesting that when someone gives the command like a president to drop Atom bombs, ( killing men women and children) they are not labelled murderers. Yet, people are so quick to label God a murder, not even take the time to seek WHY God gave similar commands.
I was debating this because this thread is supposed to be about challenges to evolutionism, and also because what I said earlier about seeking truth. I should not have to explain things like this if you and others were seeking the truth ya know? You would already have the answer to such empty/void arguments.
so, back to the challenge morality poses to evolutionism?
Ten years after WWII (1955 to 1959), I worked with atomic bombs in the Air Force. I found it to be ironic in that my ancestors are from Hiroshima. I never saw another Asian working with nuclear weapons during my four years in the Air Force.
My last base was Walker AFB in New Mexico. I learned many years later that Walker AFB was the home of Enola Gay and the planning of the bombing of Hiroshima.
The main challenge to the teaching of evolution is the fact that evolution is a bunch of bullshit, that it is being defended only by academic dead wood, and that the age during which anybody actually believed that bullshit will be referred to as a dark age in future books on the history science.
A proof or disproof is a kind of a transaction. There is no such thing as absolutely proving or disproving something; there is only such a thing as proving or disproving something to SOMEBODY'S satisfaction. If the party of the second part is too thick or too ideologically committed to some other way of viewing reality, then the best proof in the world will fall flat and fail.
In the case of evolution, what you have is a theory which has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly disproved over a period of many decades now via a number of independent lines reasoning and yet the adherents go on with it as if nothing had happened and, in fact, demand that the doctrine be taught in public schools at public expense and that no other theory of origins even ever be mentioned in public schools, and attempt to enforce all of that via political power plays and lawsuits.
At that point, it is clear enough that no disproof or combination of disproofs would ever suffice, that the doctrine is in fact unfalsifiable and that Carl popper's criteria for a pseudoscience is in fact met.
Once again for anybody who may have missed this earlier:
The educated lay person is not aware of how overwhelmingly evolution has been debunked over the last century.
The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:
The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s. Those tests were intended to demonstrate macroevolution; the failure of those tests was so unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists disavowed evolution at the time.
The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...)
The fact that the info code explained the failure of the fruit-fly experiments (the whole thing is driven by information and the only info there ever was in that picture was the info for a fruit fly...)
The discovery of bio-electrical machinery within 1-celled animals.
The question of irreducible complexity.
The Haldane Dilemma. That is, the gigantic spaces of time it would take to spread any genetic change through an entire herd of animals.
The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs. This includes soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains (blind tests at the University of Georgia's dating lab), and native American petroglyphs clearly showing known dinosaur types.
The fact that the Haldane dilemma and the recent findings related to dinosaurs amount to a sort of a time sandwich (evolutionites need quadrillions of years and only have a few tens of thousands).
The dna analysis eliminating neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.
The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types. "Punctuated Equilibria" in fact amounts to an attempt to get around both the Haldane dilemma and the lack of intermediate fossils, but has an entirely new set of overwhelming problems of its own...
The question of genetic entropy.
The obvious evidence of design in nature.
The arguments arising from pure probability and combinatoric considerations.
Here's what I mean when I use the term "combinatoric considerations"...
The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.
Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, the specialized system which allows flight feathers to pivot so as to open on upstrokes and close to trap air on downstrokes (like a venetian blind), a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.
For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.
In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.
All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.
And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.
Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.
Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.
I ask you: What could be stupider than that?
Fruit flies breed new generations every few days. Running a continuous decades-long experiment on fruit flies will involve more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything resembling humans on Earth. Evolution is supposed to be driven by random mutation and natural selection; they subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and recombined the mutants every possible way, and all they ever got was fruit flies.
Richard Goldschmidt wrote the results of all of that up in 1940, noting that it was then obvious enough that no combination of mutation and selection could ever produce a new kind of animal.
There is no excuse for evolution to ever have been taught in schools after 1940.