Follow Main Street Monroe: Facebook Twitter

 
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - You aint from around here?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

You aint from around here?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 1 Votes, Average 5.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
blueblood View Drop Down
Voice Council
Voice Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 19 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 6493
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote blueblood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: You aint from around here?
    Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 11:17am
This is not an all encompassing list, but merely a start, and food for thought. Things that might have not been covered in our indoctrination process. Let the howling begin.



44 Reasons Why Evolution Is Just A Fairy Tale For Adults



The theory of evolution is false. It is simply not true. Actually, it is just a fairy tale for adults based on ancient pagan religious philosophy that hundreds of millions of people around the world choose to believe with blind faith. When asked to produce evidence for the theory of evolution, most adults in the western world come up totally blank. When pressed, most people will mumble something about how “most scientists believe it” and how that is good enough for them. This kind of anti-intellectualism even runs rampant on our college campuses. If you doubt this, just go to a college campus some time and start asking students why they believe in evolution. Very few of them will actually be able to give you any real reasons why they believe it. Most of them just have blind faith in the priest class in our society (“the scientists”). But is what our priest class telling us actually true? When Charles Darwin popularized the theory of evolution, he didn’t actually have any evidence that it was true. And since then the missing evidence has still not materialized. Most Americans would be absolutely shocked to learn that most of what is taught as “truth” about evolution is actually the product of the overactive imaginations of members of the scientific community. They so badly want to believe that it is true that they will go to extraordinary lengths to defend their fairy tale. They keep insisting that the theory of evolution has been “proven” and that it is beyond debate. Meanwhile, most average people are intimidated into accepting the “truth” about evolution because they don’t want to appear to be “stupid” to everyone else.

In this day and age, it is imperative that we all learn to think for ourselves. Don’t let me tell you what to think, and don’t let anyone else tell you what to think either. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions. The following are 44 reasons why evolution is just a fairy tale for adults…

#1 If the theory of evolution was true, we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species. Instead, we have zero.

#2 When Charles Darwin came up with his theory, he admitted that no transitional forms had been found at that time, but he believed that huge numbers certainly existed and would eventually be discovered…


“Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”

#3 Even some of the most famous evolutionists in the world acknowledge the complete absence of transitional fossils in the fossil record. For example, Dr. Colin Patterson, former senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History and author of “Evolution” once wrote the following…





“I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them …. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”

#4 Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University, once wrote the following about the lack of transitional forms…


“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”

#5 Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University has also commented on the stunning lack of transitional forms in the fossil record…


“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.”

#6 If “evolution” was happening right now, there would be millions of creatures out there with partially developed features and organs. But instead there are none.

#7 If the theory of evolution was true, we should not see a sudden explosion of fully formed complex life in the fossil record. Instead, that is precisely what we find.

#8 Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki, an evolutionist, once commented on the fact that complex life appears very suddenly in the fossil record…


“A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.”

#9 The sudden appearance of complex life in the fossil record is so undeniable that even Richard Dawkins has been forced to admit it…


“It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative.”

#10 Nobody has ever observed macroevolution take place in the laboratory or in nature. In other words, nobody has ever observed one kind of creature turn into another kind of creature. The entire theory of evolution is based on blind faith.

#11 Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, openly admits that “the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.”

#12 Even evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University has admitted that the record shows that species do not change. The following is how he put it during a lecture at Hobart & William Smith College…


“Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome….brings terrible distress. ….They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t talk about it.”

#13 Anyone that believes that the theory of evolution has “scientific origins” is fooling themselves. It is actually a deeply pagan religious philosophy that can be traced back for thousands of years.

#14 Anything that we dig up that is supposedly more than 250,000 years old should have absolutely no radiocarbon in it whatsoever. But instead, we find it in everything that we dig up – even dinosaur bones. This is clear evidence that the “millions of years” theory is simply a bunch of nonsense…


It’s long been known that radiocarbon (which should disappear in only a few tens of thousands of years at the most) keeps popping up reliably in samples (like coal, oil, gas, etc.) which are supposed to be ‘millions of years’ old. For instance, CMI has over the years commissioned and funded the radiocarbon testing of a number of wood samples from ‘old’ sites (e.g. with Jurassic fossils, inside Triassic sandstone, burnt by Tertiary basalt) and these were published (by then staff geologist Dr Andrew Snelling) in Creation magazine and Journal of Creation. In each case, with contamination eliminated, the result has been in the thousands of years, i.e. C-14 was present when it ‘shouldn’t have been’. These results encouraged the rest of the RATE team to investigate C-14 further, building on the literature reviews of creationist M.D. Dr Paul Giem.

In another very important paper presented at this year’s ICC, scientists from the RATE group summarized the pertinent facts and presented further experimental data. The bottom line is that virtually all biological specimens, no matter how ‘old’ they are supposed to be, show measurable C-14 levels. This effectively limits the age of all buried biota to less than (at most) 250,000 years.

#15 The odds of even a single sell “assembling itself” by chance are so low that they aren’t even worth talking about. The following is an excerpt from Jonathan Gray’s book entitled “The Forbidden Secret“…


Even the simplest cell you can conceive of would require no less than 100,000 DNA base pairs and a minimum of about 10,000 amino acids, to form the essential protein chain. Not to mention the other things that would also be necessary for the first cell.

Bear in mind that every single base pair in the DNA chain has to have the same molecular orientation (“left-hand” or “right hand”)? As well as that, virtually all the amino acids must have the opposite orientation. And every one must be without error.

“Now,” explained Larry, “to randomly obtain those correct orientations, do you know your chances? It would be 1 chance in 2110,000, or 1 chance in 1033,113!

“To put it another way, if you attempted a trillion, trillion, trillion combinations every second for 15 billion years, the odds you would achieve all the correct orientations would still only be one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion … and the trillions would continue 2755 times!

“It would be like winning more than 4700 state lotteries in a row with a single ticket purchased for each. In other words…impossible.”

#16 How did life learn to reproduce itself? This is a question that evolutionists do not have an answer for.

#17 In 2007, fishermen caught a very rare creature known as a Coelacanth. Evolutionists originally told us that this “living fossil” had gone extinct 70 million years ago. It turns out that they were only off by 70 million years.

#18 According to evolutionists, the Ancient Greenling Damselfly last showed up in the fossil record about 300 million years ago. But it still exists today. So why hasn’t it evolved at all over the time frame?

#19 Darwinists believe that the human brain developed without the assistance of any designer. This is so laughable it is amazing that there are any people out there that still believe this stuff. The truth is that the human brain is amazingly complex. The following is how a PBS documentary described the complexity of the human brain: “It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.”

#20 The following is how one evolutionist pessimistically assessed the lack of evidence for the evolution of humanity…


“Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.”

#21 Perhaps the most famous fossil in the history of the theory of evolution, “Piltdown Man”, turned out to be a giant hoax.

#22 If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and therefore life would not be possible. How can we account for this?

#23 If gravity was stronger or weaker by the slimmest of margins, then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would also make life impossible. How can we account for this?

#24 Why did evolutionist Dr. Lyall Watson make the following statement?…


“The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!”

#25 Apes and humans are very different genetically. As DarwinConspiracy.com explains, “the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.”

#26 How can we explain the creation of new information that is required for one animal to turn into another animal? No evolutionary process has ever been shown to be able to create new biological information. One scientist described the incredible amount of new information that would be required to transform microbes into men this way…


“The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus).”

#27 Evolutionists would have us believe that there are nice, neat fossil layers with older fossils being found in the deepest layers and newer fossils being found in the newest layers. This simply is not true at all…


The fossil layers are not found in the ground in the nice neat clean order that evolutionists illustrate them to be in their textbooks. There is not one place on the surface of the earth where you may dig straight down and pass through the fossil layers in the order shown in the textbooks. The neat order of one layer upon another does not exist in nature. The fossil bearing layers are actually found out of order, upside down (backwards according to evolutionary theory), missing (from where evolutionists would expect them to be) or interlaced (“younger” and “older” layers found in repeating sequences). “Out of place” fossils are the rule and not the exception throughout the fossil record.

#28 Evolutionists believe that the ancestors of birds developed hollow bones over thousands of generations so that they would eventually be light enough to fly. This makes absolutely no sense and is beyond ridiculous.

#29 If dinosaurs really are tens of millions of years old, why have scientists found dinosaur bones with soft tissue still in them? The following is from an NBC News report about one of these discoveries…


For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70 million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex.

#30 Which evolved first: blood, the heart, or the blood vessels for the blood to travel through?

#31 Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?

#32 Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?

#33 Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?

#34 In order for blood to clot, more than 20 complex steps need to successfully be completed. How in the world did that process possibly evolve?

#35 DNA is so incredibly complex that it is absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have “evolved” all by itself by accident…


When it comes to storing massive amounts of information, nothing comes close to the efficiency of DNA. A single strand of DNA is thousands of times thinner than a strand of human hair. One pinhead of DNA could hold enough information to fill a stack of books stretching from the earth to the moon 500 times.

Although DNA is wound into tight coils, your cells can quickly access, copy, and translate the information stored in DNA. DNA even has a built-in proofreader and spell-checker that ensure precise copying. Only about one mistake slips through for every 10 billion nucleotides that are copied.

#36 Can you solve the following riddle by Perry Marshall?…


1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

#37 Evolutionists simply cannot explain why our planet is so perfectly suited to support life.

#38 Shells from living snails have been “carbon dated” to be 27,000 years old.

#39 If humans have been around for so long, where are all of the bones and all of the graves? The following is an excerpt from an article by Don Batten…


Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000 years when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artefacts—cremation was not practised until relatively recent times (in evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artefacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the earth. If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found. However, even if the bodies had disintegrated, lots of artefacts should still be found.

#40 Evolutionists claim that just because it looks like we were designed that does not mean that we actually were. They often speak of the “illusion of design”, but that is kind of like saying that it is an “illusion” that a 747 airplane or an Apple iPhone were designed. And of course the human body is far more complex that a 747 or an iPhone.

#41 If you want to be part of the “scientific community” today, you must accept the theory of evolution no matter how absurd it may seem to you. Richard Lewontin of Harvard once made the following comment regarding this harsh reality…


We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

#42 Time Magazine once made the following statement about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution…


“Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn’t fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate.”

#43 Malcolm Muggeridge, the world famous journalist and philosopher, once made the following statement about the absurdity of the theory of evolution…


“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”

#44 In order to believe the theory of evolution, you must have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from nonlife, and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it suddenly found itself. Do you have that much blind faith?

For years, I have been looking for someone that can explain to me the very best evidence for the theory of evolution in a systematic way. My challenge has been for someone to lay out for me a basic outline of the facts that “prove” that evolution is true.



“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain
Back to Top
jrock1203 View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen
Avatar

Joined: May 22 2013
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1542
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jrock1203 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 11:51am
Annnnnd this is why we rank so low on the global education scores.
 
For starters, Darwin didn't originate the concept. womp womp
Transitional fossils? How about the lizards with feathers....
#6: see lungfish.
#7: right, all of the single celled and basic organisms don't and never did exist. Right.
#15: obviously failed biology
#16: really? REALLY?
#17: My god, science admits it was wrong? Happens all the time, totally unrelated to this
#21: also unrelated
#25: really...

I give up, tl:dr
 
This is beyond unintelligent.
 
Biggest problem is lack of objectivity, if you present a report from an unbiased source (ie., someone not trying to push creationism) it may have merit - this has none.
 
There is a billion times more "evidence" for evolution than in a book written by numerous people over many generations - ie., the bible, torah, and q'uran.
 
How much "evidence" for creation is there? literally zero. what happened to all of the people places and things mentioned in the bible and other religious texts?
 
Evolution has zero relation to pagan myths.
 
This is why we can't have nice things.
 
 
No wonder my generation is so fed up with yours.
 
 
 
 
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Back to Top
Houndog View Drop Down
Voice Council
Voice Council


Joined: Dec 31 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 5462
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Houndog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 12:43pm
Originally posted by blueblood blueblood wrote:



#6 If “evolution” was happening right now, there would be millions of creatures out there with partially developed features and organs. But instead there are none.





Not here to argue. Your personal beliefs, or anyone else's for that matter are of no importance to me.

But I must state that unarguably, whomever wrote bullet point #6 must live in a vacuum. This due the fact that one trip to Wal-mart, or anywhere out in public these days, proves this statement to be laughably false.   
Back to Top
jrock1203 View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen
Avatar

Joined: May 22 2013
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1542
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jrock1203 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 12:50pm
I too didn't want to argue personal belief - sorry if that was what was interpreted.
 
 
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Back to Top
Matt_Steele View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Mar 07 2001
Status: Offline
Points: 3475
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Matt_Steele Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 2:39pm

I'll let Bill Nye explain how I feel about this post. Especially around 1:45


Back to Top
MoneyBags View Drop Down
Voice Citizen
Voice Citizen


Joined: Sep 02 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 667
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MoneyBags Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 6:41pm
It's nice to see that the creationism standard fare hasn't changed that must.
 
A lot of this stuff could be cleared up with a basic 101 biology course, or a firm understanding of the scientific method.

A lot of this stuff hasn't changed, so the information is out there for people truly curious about it.
Back to Top
MElass View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Sep 11 2013
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1640
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MElass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 10 2014 at 8:35pm
Originally posted by jrock1203 jrock1203 wrote:

Annnnnd this is why we rank so low on the global education scores.
 
 
No wonder my generation is so fed up with yours.
 
 
 
Please do not make this a generational issue!!!  I would venture to say that I am of the same or older generation than Blueblood.  Yet even though I have a strong religious/faith-based background, I cannot disregard evolution.  Only a TOTAL lack of understanding of science (Earth science,  geology and biology) and/or a religious intensity that promotes ignorance of said science can explain such fervor in denying evolution.
Back to Top
blueblood View Drop Down
Voice Council
Voice Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 19 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 6493
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote blueblood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 11 2014 at 8:41am
Just about what I expected. I was once just like you, picked and believed what was necessary to support the popular ideas of the prevailing wind. I didn't post to prove or disprove evolution but to show how people can and do believe what they wish to think is true, while completely discounting any and all hard evidence to the contrary. Science and theory become so blurred that they are indistinguishable and actually evolve into fervent validations of faith to whatever side you choose to support, when the facts are, there shouldn't be sides at all but independent evaluations.

The conclusion by almost everyone was channeled in the direction of a creationists when there was little support if any for such a conclusion.

My observation and conclusion has been validated that the whole argument is a religious one, regardless of which side of the argument you might come down on.


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain
Back to Top
MFD50 View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Dec 24 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 2182
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MFD50 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 11 2014 at 10:27am
I do not disregard evolution and believe that any changes in any life form is guided by our creator Holy God! He and He alone can change the universe with just a word. So how easy is it for Him to change something He created? He controls all the physical laws that govern our world so He can change them at any time to meet His needs. We will all see the true history of the universe when He is ready and not until then.
1 Corinthians 2:9
But as it is written:

“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”

Back to Top
cmsquare View Drop Down
Voice Council
Voice Council
Avatar

Joined: Sep 30 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 8186
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cmsquare Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 11 2014 at 8:03pm
Originally posted by blueblood blueblood wrote:

Just about what I expected. I was once just like you, picked and believed what was necessary to support the popular ideas of the prevailing wind. I didn't post to prove or disprove evolution but to show how people can and do believe what they wish to think is true, while completely discounting any and all hard evidence to the contrary. Science and theory become so blurred that they are indistinguishable and actually evolve into fervent validations of faith to whatever side you choose to support, when the facts are, there shouldn't be sides at all but independent evaluations.

The conclusion by almost everyone was channeled in the direction of a creationists when there was little support if any for such a conclusion.

My observation and conclusion has been validated that the whole argument is a religious one, regardless of which side of the argument you might come down on.



You do not understand science, that is very clear.   Way to dodge direct points made and just blab some more.
Back to Top
cmsquare View Drop Down
Voice Council
Voice Council
Avatar

Joined: Sep 30 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 8186
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cmsquare Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 11 2014 at 8:04pm
Originally posted by MFD50 MFD50 wrote:



I do not disregard evolution and believe that any changes in any life form is guided by our creator Holy God! He and He alone can change the universe with just a word. So how easy is it for Him to change something He created? He controls all the physical laws that govern our world so He can change them at any time to meet His needs. We will all see the true history of the universe when He is ready and not until then.
1 Corinthians 2:9
But as it is written:<div ="poetry top-1"><p ="line"><span ="text 1Cor-2-9"><span ="oblique">“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,</span></span>
<span ="text 1Cor-2-9"><span ="oblique">Nor have entered into the heart of man</span></span>
<span ="text 1Cor-2-9"><span ="oblique">The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”</span></span>



I expect this to be a popular stance when creationism is abandoned.
Back to Top
jrock1203 View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen
Avatar

Joined: May 22 2013
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1542
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jrock1203 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 15 2014 at 8:53am
Ultimately here's the outcome of this discussion - and I'm speaking to you blueblood.
 
You will not change my (or any of the other folks who know evolution is fact) mind on the subject, and I won't change your (or any of the other folks who doubt evolution is fact) mind. However, the bottom line is that there are no solid arguments that disprove evolution - just as there are none that disprove religion - and I say that as an atheist! :-)
 
The discussion is healthy, but so much of the "research" into disproving evolotion is not objective and almost entirely able to be proven incorrect at best just as the "research" into disproving religion is - total nonsense.
 
Evolution is a theory, yes, but so is gravity. So is relativity. There are solid, concrete observable facts that say hey, this is the best explanation.
 
But for some folks, it's just too impossible for them to consider another possibility than a supernatural cause of creation/existence - and that's fine.
 
Believing one over the other doesn't make you foolish or smart - they're simply attempts to explain our origins.
 
One just has more observable fact, while the other has to be taken on faith - which is why it's called faith :-)
 
 
Cheers.
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Back to Top
jrock1203 View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen
Avatar

Joined: May 22 2013
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1542
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jrock1203 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 15 2014 at 8:55am
Originally posted by MFD50 MFD50 wrote:

I do not disregard evolution and believe that any changes in any life form is guided by our creator Holy God! He and He alone can change the universe with just a word. So how easy is it for Him to change something He created? He controls all the physical laws that govern our world so He can change them at any time to meet His needs. We will all see the true history of the universe when He is ready and not until then.
1 Corinthians 2:9
But as it is written:

“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”

 
Do those "things" include famine, disease, war, death, despair, pain, and suffering? Wink Sounds like a wonderful being to worship!
 
 
Just givin' you a hard time Smile
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Back to Top
MFD50 View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Dec 24 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 2182
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MFD50 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 15 2014 at 1:01pm
He is a wonderful being to worship. If you knew Him you would understand that ALL things work for our own good. Yes, we are made to suffer sometimes to learn to appreciate the better things in life. If it never rained our gardens would never grow. (yes I used a metaphor). But  you must understand if we were given everything then we would not learn to be happy with what we have been given.
I do not understand why young children have to die except that sometimes it is good to have someone that has walked through the fire to stand by your side in your time of need.  It was nice to have people that lost their mother to stand by my side and tell me how they coped and how they were able to Praise God for all the things they do have.
Back to Top
blueblood View Drop Down
Voice Council
Voice Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 19 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 6493
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote blueblood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 15 2014 at 2:01pm
Originally posted by jrock1203 jrock1203 wrote:

Ultimately here's the outcome of this discussion - and I'm speaking to you blueblood.
 

You will not change my (or any of the other folks who know evolution is fact) mind on the subject, and I won't change your (or any of the other folks who doubt evolution is fact) mind. However, the bottom line is that there are no solid arguments that disprove evolution - just as there are none that disprove religion - and I say that as an atheist! :-)

 

The discussion is healthy, but so much of the "research" into disproving evolution is not objective and almost entirely able to be proven incorrect at best just as the "research" into disproving religion is - total nonsense.

 

Evolution is a theory, yes, but so is gravity. So is relativity. There are solid, concrete observable facts that say hey, this is the best explanation.

 

But for some folks, it's just too impossible for them to consider another possibility than a supernatural cause of creation/existence - and that's fine.

 

Believing one over the other doesn't make you foolish or smart - they're simply attempts to explain our origins.

 

One just has more observable fact, while the other has to be taken on faith - which is why it's called faith :-)

 

 

Cheers.


I suggest you watch the debate Feb. 4, between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, the science guy and with an open mind, tell me who won. You expect him to use the bible and religious rants, I can tell you, the bible will not be mentioned. He will use established science and destroy Bill Nye.

That is why Giant Brains refuse to debate him. I have seen them in the past, and though the media will stammer and stutter, it will in effect, end in a draw, but the real winner will be Ken Ham, for he will have shown, just as in global warming, it is not settled, but only of the very narrow and closed mind as has been shown with "settled science" throughout the ages!

All that glitters is not gold, and just because they say and claim it, does not necessarily make it so. It is a closed society and if you go against popular opinion, you are drummed out of the club. IE Ben Stein's "Expelled" is one example that comes to mind.



“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain
Back to Top
Matt_Steele View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Mar 07 2001
Status: Offline
Points: 3475
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Matt_Steele Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 15 2014 at 4:00pm
Haha well here's what's going to happen. The debate will happen and if Jrock or anyone else who believes in evolution thinks that Bill Nye won, you're going to say that we didn't watch with an open mind.

People aren't scared of creationists. They're scared of giving them a forum to spread false science. Like Bill Nye said, we need our kids to understand fundamental science in order to compete globally with students in other countries, most of whom (not all of course) believe in the solid theory of evolution.

I do wonder why Bill Nye would do this though. I understand why Ken Ham would, the Creation Museum has been in some economic trouble and this will certainly give him some attention. Nye's motives are less clear. There's little he can gain here. He's not going to convince any Creationists and Ken Ham isn't going to convince anyone who already believes in evolution. There's little middle ground of people who are unsure.

Ken Ham is a good debater, there's no doubt about that. However, being able to effectively argue your point of view doesn't make it right. Plus, Nye is a seasoned debater as well.

It'll be just like the Presidential debates. 
Back to Top
blueblood View Drop Down
Voice Council
Voice Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 19 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 6493
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote blueblood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 15 2014 at 4:35pm
Originally posted by Matt_Steele Matt_Steele wrote:

Haha well here's what's going to happen. The debate will happen and if Jrock or anyone else who believes in evolution thinks that Bill Nye won, you're going to say that we didn't watch with an open mind.

People aren't scared of creationists. They're scared of giving them a forum to spread false science. Like Bill Nye said, we need our kids to understand fundamental science in order to compete globally with students in other countries, most of whom (not all of course) believe in the solid theory of evolution.

I do wonder why Bill Nye would do this though. I understand why Ken Ham would, the Creation Museum has been in some economic trouble and this will certainly give him some attention. Nye's motives are less clear. There's little he can gain here. He's not going to convince any Creationists and Ken Ham isn't going to convince anyone who already believes in evolution. There's little middle ground of people who are unsure.

Ken Ham is a good debater, there's no doubt about that. However, being able to effectively argue your point of view doesn't make it right. Plus, Nye is a seasoned debater as well.

It'll be just like the Presidential debates. 
Pretty fair analysis I suppose. It will be fun. Ken Ham has more to gain and Bill Nye has more to lose. The evolutionist has maybe never heard anything much other than, the other side are religious fanatics escaped from the asylum. We were all indoctrinated from a very young age that theory was science and absolutely final! When they hear scientific facts and reasoning questioning their learned beliefs, anyone with an open mind could only ask "what was that again"?


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain
Back to Top
cmsquare View Drop Down
Voice Council
Voice Council
Avatar

Joined: Sep 30 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 8186
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cmsquare Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 15 2014 at 7:14pm
The creation museum had to install zip lines in order to make enough money to stay afloat.

when you can tell me what zip lines and creationism have to do with each other I will be all ears.

LOL at the idea of Bill Nye being destroyed by this guy.




Back to Top
MoneyBags View Drop Down
Voice Citizen
Voice Citizen


Joined: Sep 02 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 667
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MoneyBags Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 15 2014 at 8:34pm

The only debate that matters. Ali G vs Kent Hovind the creationist.
Back to Top
jrock1203 View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen
Avatar

Joined: May 22 2013
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1542
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jrock1203 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 16 2014 at 8:39am
Originally posted by MoneyBags MoneyBags wrote:


The only debate that matters. Ali G vs Kent Hovind the creationist.
Ali G FTW!!!
 
 
Booyakah booyakah
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Back to Top
jrock1203 View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen
Avatar

Joined: May 22 2013
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1542
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jrock1203 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 16 2014 at 10:18am
Originally posted by blueblood blueblood wrote:

Originally posted by Matt_Steele Matt_Steele wrote:

Haha well here's what's going to happen. The debate will happen and if Jrock or anyone else who believes in evolution thinks that Bill Nye won, you're going to say that we didn't watch with an open mind.

People aren't scared of creationists. They're scared of giving them a forum to spread false science. Like Bill Nye said, we need our kids to understand fundamental science in order to compete globally with students in other countries, most of whom (not all of course) believe in the solid theory of evolution.

I do wonder why Bill Nye would do this though. I understand why Ken Ham would, the Creation Museum has been in some economic trouble and this will certainly give him some attention. Nye's motives are less clear. There's little he can gain here. He's not going to convince any Creationists and Ken Ham isn't going to convince anyone who already believes in evolution. There's little middle ground of people who are unsure.

Ken Ham is a good debater, there's no doubt about that. However, being able to effectively argue your point of view doesn't make it right. Plus, Nye is a seasoned debater as well.

It'll be just like the Presidential debates. 
Pretty fair analysis I suppose. It will be fun. Ken Ham has more to gain and Bill Nye has more to lose. The evolutionist has maybe never heard anything much other than, the other side are religious fanatics escaped from the asylum. We were all indoctrinated from a very young age that theory was science and absolutely final! When they hear scientific facts and reasoning questioning their learned beliefs, anyone with an open mind could only ask "what was that again"?
Here's how I see this playing out:
 
 
Ham wins hands down, especially since the debate is in his arena and is charging for audience admission. I feel the audience will primarily those who doubt evolution, and thus already have their minds made up.
 
Bill Nye will make his case and be viewed as incorrect by the audience.
 
 
When I first saw this I got super excited and wanted to go - until I realized I'd be giving money to said museum - no freakin' way.
 
 
I at least try to consider everything with an open mind. I was never told that science is solid fact, absolutely true, and never changes. Since as long as I can remember, the scientific method and concept of peer reviewed academia has been "indoctrinated" into me - in other words, while science presents facts, through continued work we can show that there is more to the story.
 
 
On the other hand, take creationism - God/It/He/Supreme Being etc., created everything. Only explanation, never changes, and all others are wrong. Sounds like religion to me.
 
 
It's a good show to put on, but ultimately a PR stunt for the museum.
 
Like I said, if you've made up your mind that evolution is some sort of atheist, communist, liberal plot LOL nothing will change your mind - even factual evidence.
 
There was an article I read in PLos One the other day that showed of the two thousand or so writings on evolution - from over 800 authors - only 2, TWO, doubted evolution.
 
Here's some food for thought as it were, evolution is not real? Explain this....
 
 
1. Elephants are literally evolving to lose their tusks
2. Russian feral dogs evolved to understand the subway schedule (indicates increased brain capacity)
3. Hudson River fish are generationally evolving to handle toxic chemicals in the river
4. Peppered moths have changed their coloring over time to match pollution in the air
5. The Lungfish - 'nuff said.
6. Universal DNA code
7. Umm, fossils. Wink
8. Genetic Commonalities
9. Common traits in embryos (even humans look an awful lot like tadpoles at first)
10. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics
 
 
 
What kills me is that carbon dating is so hard core denied as false by this crowd - creationists I mean. So because of a perceived fault in one dating method, and entire scientific community is wrong...oooook
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Back to Top
blueblood View Drop Down
Voice Council
Voice Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 19 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 6493
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote blueblood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 16 2014 at 11:37am
You seem to keep hammering the notion that evolution is strictly a religious movement, when the case is more easily made the opposite is true. Evolution must exist in order for the intellectual mind to ascertain that God does not exist and they therefore are under no authority other than that of man made variety.

Evolution has little evidence since, if true, a non existent fossil trail that should be easily tracked but does not exist, and the premise depends upon there being hundreds of millions of years, the earths age.

All that is necessary to disprove evolution is show that earth is too young for evolution, and the whole theory collapses upon itself. That is what Ken Ham will do, not bring fire and brimstone upon the unbelieving. Science in it's own success has essentially proving that evolution is an impossibility.
But we will see.


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain
Back to Top
cmsquare View Drop Down
Voice Council
Voice Council
Avatar

Joined: Sep 30 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 8186
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cmsquare Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 16 2014 at 12:34pm
Back to Top
jrock1203 View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen
Avatar

Joined: May 22 2013
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1542
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote jrock1203 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 16 2014 at 12:36pm
Originally posted by blueblood blueblood wrote:

You seem to keep hammering the notion that evolution is strictly a religious movement, when the case is more easily made the opposite is true. Evolution must exist in order for the intellectual mind to ascertain that God does not exist and they therefore are under no authority other than that of man made variety.

Evolution has little evidence since, if true, a non existent fossil trail that should be easily tracked but does not exist, and the premise depends upon there being hundreds of millions of years, the earths age.

All that is necessary to disprove evolution is show that earth is too young for evolution, and the whole theory collapses upon itself. That is what Ken Ham will do, not bring fire and brimstone upon the unbelieving. Science in it's own success has essentially proving that evolution is an impossibility.
But we will see.
 
I'm sorry but no.
 
Fossil trail is visible to the naked eye - carbon dating is accurate.
 
Creationism is religion in disguise, nothing more and nothing less.
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Back to Top
blueblood View Drop Down
Voice Council
Voice Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 19 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 6493
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote blueblood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 16 2014 at 4:34pm



Creation Museum

The February 4 debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham at the Creation Museum has generated tremendous interest across America. Online debate tickets for a spot in our 900-seat Legacy Hall sold out in less than two minutes, and coverage in the news media, blogs, and other websites has continued to remain intense.

We have been working behind the scenes in an effort to allow all interested people, wherever they are around the globe, to view this debate live. To this end, we are pleased to announce that this debate will be available to view online and free of charge at debatelive.org. We hope that many will take advantage of this opportunity to view the debate in real time. You may watch the debate at home, or organize a gathering to show the live stream to your small group, your youth group, your entire church, or other groups. . . .


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

The Voice | Weather | Advertisers | Advertising Information | Lending Library | Monroe Church Directory

Archived Monroe News From: 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011

Website Design © Xponex Web and Media Services | Contact | Terms of Use | Copyright ©2012 MainStreetMonroe.com