God used Evolution to 'create' man

[Paul James]

7 hours ago, one.opinion said:

The obvious contradiction in terms reveals your unwillingness to consider other viewpoints.

Evolution is a sign of man's rebellion against God.  If you want to team up with sinful, rebels against God, then don't be surprised at the consequences.

[one.opinion]

3 hours ago, Paul James said:

If you want to team up with atheists and their godless lies, then so be it be on your own head!

I don’t at all. You seem to have issues with reading comprehension.

[ChemEngineer]

7 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I don’t at all. You seem to have issues with reading comprehension.

Dear Friends and Brothers in Christ,  Paul James and one.opinion,

The claim that Paul James has "issues with reading comprehension" is demeaning and unwarranted.  Arrogance and condescension are two of the many hallmarks of atheists, Leftists and Democrats.  To be sure, all of us are proud to some degree. 

There is another explanation which is clearly demonstrated in two of my threads elsewhere.  The first was Lesson Within a Lesson, where a riddle was plainly stated and yet nobody could solve it.  More recently I posted a page from National Geographic magazine which eight million readers did not notice was printed UPSIDE DOWN!  Once you know and accept truth, you can never go back on it and  unknow.

If Darwinian evolution were as certain as so many pretend, there could not possibly be the dissent from a great number of well educated biochemists, mathematicians, physicists, medical doctors, and biologists that we see  today.  The insuperable statistics of protein synthesis are the most powerful argument against Darwin's Tautology that I can imagine.  And yet many dismiss them because they simply refuse to admit that they were wrong.

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, ChemEngineer said:

Dear Friends and Brothers in Christ,  Paul James and one.opinion,

The claim that Paul James has "issues with reading comprehension" is demeaning and unwarranted.  Arrogance and condescension are two of the many hallmarks of atheists, Leftists and Democrats.  To be sure, all of us are proud to some degree. 

You are correct, I should not have grown impatient with the repeated false assertion that I am teaming up with atheists, when I am doing nothing of the sort.

I'm unsure what politics has to do with any of this conversation, since Paul lives in New Zealand and not the US.

2 hours ago, ChemEngineer said:

If Darwinian evolution were as certain as so many pretend, there could not possibly be the dissent from a great number of well educated biochemists, mathematicians, physicists, medical doctors, and biologists that we see  today.

That's an interesting argument. What if I were to apply the same logic to Young Earth Creationism?

"If Young Earth Creationism were as certain as so many pretend, there could not possibly be the dissent from a great number of well educated lay people and Biblical scholars that we see today."

There are well-educated people that dissent from all sorts of things. Dissent does not make anything false any more than a majority belief makes something true. When it comes to scientific issues, conclusions should be based on evidence.

2 hours ago, ChemEngineer said:

The insuperable statistics of protein synthesis are the most powerful argument against Darwin's Tautology that I can imagine.

If you are arguing that the probability of the first proteins (or nucleic acids, or phospholipids, or polysaccharides, or cells) are better explained by divine action, rather than random chance, I agree with you 100%. In the decades of research that has gone into prebiotic chemistry, there has been very sparse evidence supporting the idea of chemical evolution.

[ChemEngineer]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

That's an interesting argument. What if I were to apply the same logic to Young Earth Creationism?

"If Young Earth Creationism were as certain as so many pretend, there could not possibly be the dissent from a great number of well educated lay people and Biblical scholars that we see today."

There are well-educated people that dissent from all sorts of things. Dissent does not make anything false any more than a majority belief makes something true. When it comes to scientific issues, conclusions should be based on evidence.

If you are arguing that the probability of the first proteins (or nucleic acids, or phospholipids, or polysaccharides, or cells) are better explained by divine action, rather than random chance, I agree with you 100%. In the decades of research that has gone into prebiotic chemistry, there has been very sparse evidence supporting the idea of chemical evolution.

Your copycat argument fails because Darwinists preach incessantly that it is ESTABLISHED FACT, JUST LIKE GRAVITY.  DON'T BELIEVE US?   GO JUMP OFF A CLIFF, HA HA HA HA.

Pretty convincing science, is that?

Then you proceed with the entirely fallacious argument "conclusions should be based on evidence."  What do you THINK these scientists base their dissent on ! ! ! !  Answer that.  First you argue entirely on behalf of Darwinian evolution and then you agree with me 100% regarding insuperable statistics.    Which side are you on?

 

"In China we can criticize evolution but not the government.  In America you can criticize the government but not evolution." - Famous Chinese Paleontologist

[one.opinion]

15 minutes ago, ChemEngineer said:

Then you proceed with the entirely fallacious argument "conclusions should be based on evidence."  What do you THINK these scientists base their dissent on ! ! ! !  Answer that.  First you argue entirely on behalf of Darwinian evolution and then you agree with me 100% regarding insuperable statistics.    Which side are you on?

I’m really not on a “side”. I’m just talking about my personal beliefs.

1. I argue that Young Earth Creationism doesn’t match the evidence God has left for us.
 

2. I do not argue for atheistic evolution.
 

3. I argue that evolution is the tool that God has used to bring about what we see in the planet today. This, at its most fundamental form, is very different from atheistic evolution.

Once again, your logic is flawed because all I need to do is use your same argument from the other aide to show you the fallacy.

What do you think typical scientists base their acceptance of evolution on! ! !

Are the dissenters you are referring to the ones that have signed the “scientific dissent from Darwinism”? That’s an interesting topic we could talk about more.

Edited May 11, 2020 by one.opinion

[teddyv]

14 hours ago, ChemEngineer said:

"In China we can criticize evolution but not the government.  In America you can criticize the government but not evolution." - Famous Chinese Paleontologist

I remember this quote from years ago posted by someone on another forum but which no one could seem to properly attribute it too. "Famous Chinese Paleontologist" is not much to go by.  If you actually know who it is, I'd love to know.

Edited May 11, 2020 by teddyv
messed up quote

[ChemEngineer]

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

I remember this quote from years ago posted by someone on another forum but which no one could seem to properly attribute it too. "Famous Chinese Paleontologist" is not much to go by.  If you actually know who it is, I'd love to know.

 Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”

 

It wasn't hard. Look around a little for things you want.

[teddyv]

17 minutes ago, ChemEngineer said:

 Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”

 

It wasn't hard. Look around a little for things you want.

Thank you!

[The Barbarian]

On 11/5/2019 at 2:03 PM, Alive said:

Show me any place on earth geographically where this could happen. Look at the map of he region of Ararat

The mountains of Ararat are not near the mountain that is called Ararat today.    "Ararat" refers to Urartu, the area now known as Armenia.    The area is surrounded by mountains with Lake Van in the center.  

So it could very well be that.