Evolution vs Rastafari: Why you have to go with Rastafari

Truth is truth no matter the source.

Good for them for seeking to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionism.

Whether it is a ministry designed to help people stuck in drug addictions, Or a ministryDesigned to expose the bankruptcy of evolution, Islam, jehovah witness etc. they deserve a pat on the back...and then some!

Why would you trust their opinion on something when their stated objective is to reach a preconceived conclusion?

Any why trust this particular religious sect? There are thousands of them all of which reach different conclusions, why trust this one out of the bunch?

I don’t trust them, Or take their word for it.I just listen to the data, and judge for myself. As the saying goes: the numbers don’t lie, unfortunately people can and do.

What these guys correctly point out is that the foundational pillars of evolution are built upon faulty assumptions, so much so that the theory Is so far from fact, it is fiction.

There’s no such thing as religion. There are many false teachings, sure, but only one truth right?

Many of the sects you highlight believe as you.

You can"think" science is bankrupt, Science really doesnt need your approval to move forward.

Most all Christian denominations accept the theory of evolution as a fact that is heavily supported by powerful evidence AND FURTHER, IS NOT REFUTED BY ANYTHING YOUVE DUG UP.

Science is not bankrupt, evolutionary teachings are.

Is nothing new for gods people Israel to embrace false teachings/gods.
Embracing the God Many ppl believe created world which is ‘time and chance’ is expected and predictable actually.

If you dont accept the facts o evolution then you deny science because ALL the facts and evidence is based upon tested and repeatable science.

Taking science advice from you is like taking music lessons from a chipmunk

You have not provided any evidence that Israel is "god's people." Don't quote that silly bobble of yours to me, claims in a bronze age compendium of fairy tales don't constitute evidence. You provide neither evidence nor even a convincing logical argument for "evolutionary teachings" being bankrupt. Your final sentence, inferentially polytheist, simply alleges that your "god" created the world, and inferentially exists (without stating or even implying that there are no other "gods"--a serious flaw in the credibility of your bobble). But of course, your biggest failing is in not having provided any evidence, nor even a convincing logical argument that your "god" exists.

neither a jot nor a tiddle.

It seems like you do. They state their own bias right on their own web page and they present arguments which are unsupported by science (which you say you agree with), yet you reference them. That's either trust in them, or an inability on your part to honestly challenge your own conclusions.

Tittle? Is that salacious . . . jeeze, I hope so.

I do find it interesting that when speaking to, and presenting evidence to people like Jehovah’s Witness who are caught up in their false teaching say the exact same thing.... that no one has ever presented any evidence to them, and what they see and know is ‘fact.’ Huh.

I guess this comes back to one of my very first post on here, that whether it be a human being or an angelic being, There is no convincing them. Why? It seems the answer is in The heart.

It is always good engaging with people of different faiths like evolutionists. But like a Jehovah’s Witness, I can only conclude there is a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty, And if not that, a hard heart not desiring to see truth.Crazy world.

Intellectual dishonesty??? Youre like our president who wants to anoint others with names and titles that best describe himself.

You need to really understand what evidence qnd facts are. Scientists are people like any others except they are trained and have experience in a particular area. They LEARN the limitations an conditions of use for each of their tools (They dont just look it up in some YEC website that has been designed to preach Biblical mythology as if it were truth). The AIG website is riddled with errors in almost everything it states. In the radioisotope segment theyve even made some totally off the wall math errors>I know they hope that all this stuff will more "impress" their flocks rather than draw technical critique because most scientists are too busy an do not wish to engage in fruitless purposeless discourse with some clowns who have no knowledge or training in what they are blabbing about.

All the crap youve clipped has been vetted and debunked by several scientific organizations and has even been used as testimony in court to show that the YEC worldview is religiously based and is therefore a "religion" that brings in the rules of the 1st Amendment of the US COnstitution against the "Establishment of a state religion"


SCience doesnt do that, science is open for careful scrutiny and modification (if need be). People who hang on to beliefs that cannot be proven or demonstrated in a lab or discovered in the field are called "Creationists" in our fields. Of course you re free to believe in anything you wish, just dont be confused and try to dress up your beliefs as "Science" and preach your Biblical views to people who know how to work in the sciences.

Yours i a minority view by a bunch of YEC believers who follow the Bible as an inerrant document , thats too bad because you then miss the moral lessons that the myths impart.

I know science sorta gts in the way of these Bible centered beliefs but most religions have learnt to accommodate the facts of science with their beliefs. You remain a member of one of a few diminishing sects that are trying to push back against a rising tide of undeniable evidence . For that I feel almost sorry for you.

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.

Nobody with brains or talent is defending evolution anymore; the doctrine is being defended by academic dead wood like formerman here.

The entire scientific community anticipates your words of wisdom. WHen YOU deny everything we know tht we are on the right track in the search for knowledge.

You repeat the same **** over and over as if , by mere repetition it makes it fact. All the stuff you say doesnt support evolution either. All the elements of evolution support science are, falsifiable. I really dont know out of what hole you dig up your tripe. because,
1 much of it does'nt even exist
or
2. You don't understand what others even states.


You may get your "hellogoodbye" guy to believe you, but , like you, HE TOO is uneducated in the sciences


Keep reading your AIG **** nd invest in some "Creationist Oil fields"