Pope Francis: Big Bang and evolution are real.

[Thong Maniac]

Neither of your latest posts makes any sense. So I encourage you to look into what is known about creation using the sources recommended.

What do you not follow? Your posts are just filled with telling people they dont understand. What are you missing here? Insert a "creationist" into all of your rants instead of "evolutionists" and your tired argument will apply either way. Your just on the other side of the spectrum. not willing or even capable to agree even in the slightest.

Not hating here, but were you homeschooled? Im honestly curious

[mr.turbo]

You don't seem to understand evolution.

Evolution explains the mechanism - just like physics can explain the mechanism for the functioning of a car.
The specifics for any given situation require more detailed information - the gaps don't disprove evolution - they just tell us we don't have all the information.
Why does there need to be an antecedent for industrialization?
Crocodiles are a "successful" species - natural selection means that they are fit to the purpose they hold in the eco-system - why should they need to evolve if they already fit their niche and have for millions of years.

industrialization is pretty impressive. I don't see it much with other primate species so I'm curious to know where it came from.

like yo say seems to be another mechanism a work here or we've got part of the anthropological story wrong.

my feeling is we are missing about half the story.
 

[gcb]

industrialization is pretty impressive. I don't see it much with other primate species so I'm curious to know where it came from.

like yo say seems to be another mechanism a work here or we've got part of the anthropological story wrong.

my feeling is we are missing about half the story.
 

Well beavers make pretty impressive damns - there are probably other examples of "technology" being used by other animals, just nothing as impressive as industrialization.

[Ron Harrigan]

You don't seem to understand evolution.

Huge surprise.

YOUR CHALLENGE:  In the so-called evolutionary process, what exactly 'evolves'?
EVO's ANSWER: "Your ignorance about what evolution actually is won't make evolution go away."

YOUR CHALLENGE:  Explain why many dominant species on Earth went non-evolved for tens of millions of years.
EVO's ANSWER: "Your ignorance about what evolution actually is won't make evolution go away."

YOUR CHALLENGE:  Explain how the eye evolved, from what state, and what was its prior purpose.
EVO's ANSWER: "Your ignorance about what evolution actually is won't make evolution go away."

YOUR CHALLENGE: Explain the evolution of the Sexual Reproductive system, also, that of the heart.
EVO's ANSWER: "Your ignorance about what evolution actually is won't make evolution go away."

YOUR CHALLENGE: Explain why, over millions of years, evolution happened with some apes but not others.
EVO's ANSWER: "Your ignorance about what evolution actually is won't make evolution go away."

You are a right old droll.

[Ron Harrigan]

brother harridan is at his best in this mode  

The best way to demonstrate that evolutionist dogma is intellectually bankrupt is to allow an evolutionist to hold forth. Every post reinforces that conclusion.

[mr.turbo]

Well beavers make pretty impressive damns - there are probably other examples of "technology" being used by other animals, just nothing as impressive as industrialization.

we dont really know where anything impressive comes from if you start to think about it.

a very curious situation!

[Ron Harrigan]

What do you not follow? Your posts are just filled with telling people they dont understand. What are you missing here? Insert a "creationist" into all of your rants instead of "evolutionists" and your tired argument will apply either way. Your just on the other side of the spectrum. not willing or even capable to agree even in the slightest.

Not hating here, but were you homeschooled? Im honestly curious

Why? Because the historical fact of creation doesn't depend on whether you are curious, honestly or otherwise. It depends on evidence. Talk about red herrings. The some-scientists-do-not-have-any-kind-of-religion-therefore-ANY-beliefs-are-OK argument. You guys are endlessly amusing.

[mr.turbo]

The best way to demonstrate that evolutionist dogma is intellectually bankrupt is to allow an evolutionist to hold forth. Every post reinforces that conclusion.

find this thread highly amusing, thanks again for you efforts brother

[mr.turbo]

evolution does not explain much but religious institutions are rotten almost universally

that pretty much leaves us staring out into space

anybody out there?

[gcb]

Huge surprise.

YOUR CHALLENGE:  In the so-called evolutionary process, what exactly 'evolves'?
EVO's ANSWER: "Your ignorance about what evolution actually is won't make evolution go away."

YOUR CHALLENGE:  Explain why many dominant species on Earth went non-evolved for tens of millions of years.
EVO's ANSWER: "Your ignorance about what evolution actually is won't make evolution go away."

YOUR CHALLENGE:  Explain how the eye evolved, from what state, and what was its prior purpose.
EVO's ANSWER: "Your ignorance about what evolution actually is won't make evolution go away."

YOUR CHALLENGE: Explain the evolution of the Sexual Reproductive system, also, that of the heart.
EVO's ANSWER: "Your ignorance about what evolution actually is won't make evolution go away."

YOUR CHALLENGE: Explain why, over millions of years, evolution happened with some apes but not others.
EVO's ANSWER: "Your ignorance about what evolution actually is won't make evolution go away."

You are a right old droll.

Again you have not provided concrete evidence - you've just said - these things can't be explained.
There was a pretty good discourse of the evolution of the eye - looking at a more primitive snail/slug eye and how it could have evolved to a full fledged eye - obviously you're not familiar with it.

[Hulkotron]

what was sir isaac newton smoking when he said this?

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.[6]

 

Atheism was punishable by death at the time.

[Ron Harrigan]

Again you have not provided concrete evidence - you've just said - these things can't be explained.
There was a pretty good discourse of the evolution of the eye - looking at a more primitive snail/slug eye and how it could have evolved to a full fledged eye - obviously you're not familiar with it.

Strange fellow. There is a difference, is there not, between the promotion of evolutionist ignorance and objecting,  by the promotion of science and reason, to evolutionist ignorance. So reference to the supposed evolution of the eye is nothing more than another factually challenged red herring. My role as an educator is not to indoctrinate, but to inspire the acquisition of critical thinking skills. Evolution, in contrast, is about the preservation of dogma in the face of all evidence to the contrary. There is no symmetry. 

[Ron Harrigan]

Atheism was punishable by death at the time.

It still is.

[Hulkotron]

It still is.

Maybe if you live in some backwater Islamic shithole but the civilized world has moved onto a more enlightened state.

[gcb]

Strange fellow. There is a difference, is there not, between the promotion of evolutionist ignorance and objecting,  by the promotion of science and reason, to evolutionist ignorance. So reference to the supposed evolution of the eye is nothing more than another factually challenged red herring. My role as an educator is not to indoctrinate, but to inspire the acquisition of critical thinking skills. Evolution, in contrast, is about the preservation of dogma in the face of all evidence to the contrary. There is no symmetry. 

Hey - look I'm no expert. But obviously neither are you. You've claimed the following "gaps" in evolution because you don't think they can be explained and based on that you are saying creation is real.

Here is a wikipedia entry for you (they're trolls as well obviously): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

[Ron Harrigan]

Hey - look I'm no expert. But obviously neither are you. You've claimed the following "gaps" in evolution because you don't think they can be explained and based on that you are saying creation is real.

Here is a wikipedia entry for you (they're trolls as well obviously): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

I am an expert. Wikipedia is irrelevant, primarily because it cannot be verified. It's a decoy. What CAN be tested is what Genesis claims to be true. But why bother with facts when you have denial?

[gcb]

I am an expert. Wikipedia is irrelevant, primarily because it cannot be verified. It's a decoy. What CAN be tested is what Genesis claims to be true. But why bother with facts when you have denial?

I'm not denying creation - I'm simply saying I don't know - just like evolutionary scientists do. You're the one saying "it's creation now move along".

So tell me troll what of Genesis is true?

[mr.turbo]

Atheism was punishable by death at the time.

Newton was raised Anglican but did not believe in the trinity so he's described as an Arian.  

He had to conceal his movement away from the Anglicans but he was not athiest.

He studied the bible very seriously.

Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors. (newton)

[Ron Harrigan]

I'm not denying creation - I'm simply saying I don't know - just like evolutionary scientists do. You're the one saying "it's creation now move along".

So tell me troll what of Genesis is true?

All of it.

[Hulkotron]

Newton was raised Anglican but did not believe in the trinity so he's described as an Arian.  

He had to conceal his movement away from the Anglicans but he was not athiest.

He studied the bible very seriously.

Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors. (newton)

I did not say he was an atheist.  That's not the point.

The bottom line is Newton was afraid to present his true views on religion because of the repercussion that would have resulted.  He would have been branded a heretic.  This is not my opinion, this is well established by people who study Newton's life professionally.  None of his "very serious studies of the bible" were published in his lifetime.  People that like to hold up Newton as some sort of paragon of Christian Science are either willfully ignorant or just plain dumb.

[gcb]

All of it.

OK - you're no expert and have no idea and you are a troll.

[Ron Harrigan]

OK - you're no expert and have no idea and you are a troll.

Why is it that evolutionists always end up in denial? Well, it must be dreadfully tiresome to have to deal with facts that get in the way of what you believe. So let's do that reality check, shall we? The facts don't go away just because you happen not to be interested in them.

[Ron Harrigan]

 People that like to hold up Newton as some sort of paragon of Christian Science are either willfully ignorant or just plain dumb.

Are they?

[mr.turbo]

I did not say he was an atheist.  That's not the point.

The bottom line is Newton was afraid to present his true views on religion because of the repercussion that would have resulted.  He would have been branded a heretic.  This is not my opinion, this is well established by people who study Newton's life professionally.  None of his "very serious studies of the bible" were published in his lifetime.  People that like to hold up Newton as some sort of paragon of Christian Science are either willfully ignorant or just plain dumb.

you seem to have strong feelings about this

perhaps you can clarify the meaning of the quote about the motion of planets.

I must have misunderstood

[Hulkotron]

you seem to have strong feelings about this

perhaps you can clarify the meaning of the quote about the motion of planets.

I must have misunderstood

I can't explain it any simpler than I already have so I'm afraid you must fall in the "just plain dumb" category.