Evolution and Atheism have both been Proven to be False Religions

[7djengo7]

Yes I did mean a species.

Why did you not say "species", if you meant a species?

I don't mean an individual animal when discussing biological evolution,

You mean you don't mean an individual species when discussing biological evolution?? I can't tell whether you mean an animal, here, or a species, since, as you admit, you have trouble saying "species" when you mean a species, and you have trouble refraining from saying "animal" when you do not mean an animal.

that only happens in video games.

I'll take your word for it that it happens in video games.

 

[7djengo7]

For evolution to be the cause or origin of the various species we see in fossils and in the Modern world, a species has to become another species; this Macro-speciation if you will, has never been observed

Not directly by a single human because it takes far longer than a human lifetime to occur. You may as well say that a Redwood tree can't grow from a redwood seed, because no person has ever seen one grow from seedling to mature.

Alate_One, would you say that for a species to evolve is for it to become another species? Or, would you say that for a species to evolve is for it to originate another species?

That's true, but species aren't static, they change over time.

From what, into what, does a species change over time? Does a species change into another species?

 

[chair]

And I never quoted you as having used the word "creatures", so what's your point?

Here's a bit from your posts:

Here's what one of my other "science" professors taught me:

Quote Originally Posted by chair

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with changes in individual animals or plants. It deals with populations.
So, above, by your word, "creatures", do you not mean individual animals? You're not seriously going to tell me that, by "creatures", you did not mean individual animals, and that you, rather, meant populations, are you??​

By "Most [creatures] do not stay the same," do you not mean "Most individual animals evolve"?

You pretended that I used the word "creatures". I didn't.

 

[7djengo7]

Here's a bit from your posts:


You pretended that I used the word "creatures". I didn't.

I never thought/said you used the word "creatures": neither in my words that you just quoted, nor anywhere else, have I said that you used the word, "creatures". I never even addressed you in the post you just quoted from. I was addressing Alate_One in that post. In the words you quoted from my post---

By "Most [creatures] do not stay the same," do you not mean "Most individual animals evolve"?

Alate_One is the antecedent of the highlighted pronoun, "you", and you are not the antecedent of it. You have no more reason for saying that you are the antecedent of that pronoun than you would have for saying that I, 7djengo7, am the antecedent of my pronoun, "you", in what I just now wrote:

Alate_One is the antecedent of the highlighted pronoun, "you", and not you.

Whether out of sloppy inattention to the context in my post, or dishonesty, you have conjured up your false accusation against me out of your own imagination, because what you accuse me of has no basis in anything I have written.

 

[mtwilcox]

A Late One
Chair
Arthur Brain
And any other Evol

Did you know that there are sections of DNA within the human genome which evolutionists have claimed in the past to have no function; and, they referred to these sections as “junk DNA”?

It turns out that these portions do have function and are necessary in living creatures.

Also, evolutionists have claimed that humans contain vestigial organs and anatomy, left over from a previous evolutionary state...; however, in recent years scientists have discovered that tonsils and the appendix both do indeed have a purpose and function.

These false assumptions put forth by evolutionists have been discredited by Science, and are in reality functional DNA sections, organs, and anatomy; which is what we would expect to observe if creation theory is truth.

Creation theory is testable and obviously the only logical explanation of how the various forms of life we share this planet with came to exist; no matter how many times evolutionists try to claim it is not.

This fact shows that the belief in the false religion of evolution, leads to incorrect assumptions about nature; and, and shows how this dangerous belief system leads to non-science (nonsense) being taught to the masses.

Our amazing powerful creator God has made everything with a purpose, and that is what can be observed; this is another powerful observable truth which is in favor of the creation theory.

Evidence and Proof of creation is observable in every aspect of nature; however, Evidence and Proof of evolution is not observable whatsoever. With this knowledge it becomes painfully clear, that evolution is a lie, and creation is the truth.


=M=


================================

C.S. Lewis and Evolution!

Begin!

 

[chair]

A Late One
Chair
Arthur Brain
And any other Evol

Did you know that there are sections of DNA within the human genome which evolutionists have claimed in the past to have no function; and, they referred to these sections as “junk DNA”?It turns out that these portions do have function and are necessary in living creatures.

The people who claimed this were scientists. In science, one corrects ideas based on new information. That's how it works. This is not a failure of science- it i how it is done, and is one of its strengths.

In religion, some people claim to have absolute eternal truths. When new information arises, these people have to deny the information, twist facts, or otherwise blind themselves to reality.

 

[The Barbarian]

I disagree. They are a genus called “anax”.

A dragonfly is an insect belonging to the order Odonata, infraorder Anisoptera (from Greek ἄνισος anisos, "unequal" and πτερόν pteron, "wing", because the hindwing is broader than the forewing).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonfly

Alate_One is correct. You are wrong.

They can all be interbred, so they are all the same species.
Just like bees can all be interbred, and so on.

No, that's wrong, too. There are seven families of bees, each with a number of genera, and within each genus, many species.

I gave My definition for the term “species” in My original Posts:
The largest group of animals capable of producing offspring.

So only whales are "species?" Or maybe only beetles? Depending on what you mean by "largest."

How long have the Black Bear, and the Polar Bear been separated?

Millions of years. A very long time.

They can still interbreed

No,they can't. When a brown bear meets a black bear, the black bear is generally dinner, unless he gets away very quickly. You're thinking of brown bears, which diverged from polar bears maybe 100,000 years ago, and which can still interbreed.

I didn’t Mean “seen by any human”, silly; although it has not; I mean, there is no evidence for speciation whatsoever:

Even many creationist organizations now admit the fact of speciation. Would you like me to show you that? They just say it isn't "real evolution."

You jumped in all Willy Nilly trying to debate logical statements, without addressing any of my critical thought questions...

So far, we haven't seen any from you. Just to check on your "missing links", can you name any two major groups of animals, said to be evolutionarily connected, that don't have a transitional form between them?

Not Static eh?
Like I asked you before; Do you think evolution happens fast or slow?

Do you think rivers run fast or slow?

What would you say if I told you there have been Birds found in full form as fossils, that supposedly date back over 100 Million years?

The first known true bird (or something very, very close to a true bird) lived about 130 million years ago.

And now, for today’s extremely long, and ultimately incredibly informing video!!!

:yawn: If you think there's anything worth mentioning therein, be sure to tell us about it.

Dr. Kent Hovind (Granddaddy of YEC theory)

Nope. YE creationism was invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists. Hovind (who bought his "doctorate" from a "University" which consists of a trailer and some filing cabinets) merely copied their new religion and preaches the parts of it he likes.

The US Government put Dr. Hovind into prison for years, for tax evasion and not paying taxes for the money he made selling his video lectures, even the one above, that you may be viewing now. I don’t know why he didn’t get a warning and a chance to pay off the taxes as they give most US Citizens,

He did get several warnings. He thought he was smarter than the law, too.

but he spent near a decade behind bars in a federal prison.

Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time.

 

[mtwilcox]

A dragonfly is an insect belonging to the order Odonata, infraorder Anisoptera (from Greek ἄνισος anisos, "unequal" and πτερόν pteron, "wing", because the hindwing is broader than the forewing).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonfly

I simply stated what came up on google search, that large dragonflies are part of a genus called “Anex”...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anax_(dragonfly)

What I’m claiming is that dragonflies are all one species, and can be interbred.
Prove me wrong, Barbie...

No, that's wrong, too. There are seven families of bees, each with a number of genera, and within each genus, many species.

To state what I’m saying more clearly:
All bees can be interbred, all wasps can be interbred.
All members of any given genus can be interbred and produce viable offspring, because they are the same species. All finches can be interbred, all parrots can be interbred, all bears can be interbred, all dogs can be interbred; and, wolves are also dogs because they can all interbreed.

From:

https://wolf.org/wolf-info/basic-wolf-info/wolves-and-humans/wolf-dog-hybrids/

“Wolves and dogs are interfertile, meaning they can breed and produce viable offspring. In other words, wolves can interbreed with any type of dog, and their offspring are capable of producing offspring themselves.“

And:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Are...ecies?&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-m

“For years, wolves and dogs were considered separate species: canis familiaris and canis lupus. ... Unlike dogs and foxes, wolves and dogs can reproduce, creating the controversial wolf-dog. When two animals can create a fertile offspring, they're considered to be of the same species.”

So only whales are "species?" Or maybe only beetles? Depending on what you mean by "largest."

A Species is the largest group of animals which are able to reproduce and have viable offspring.

How do you define species?

No,they can't. When a brown bear meets a black bear, the black bear is generally dinner, unless he gets away very quickly. You're thinking of brown bears, which diverged from polar bears maybe 100,000 years ago, and which can still interbreed.

Did you go and just assume you are correct again?

Turns out:

“An ursid hybrid is an animal with parents from two different species or subspecies of the Ursidae (bear) family. Species and subspecies of bear known to have produced offspring with another bear species or subspecies include black bears, grizzly bears and polar bears, all of which are members of the Ursus genus.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursid_hybrid

Even many creationist organizations now admit the fact of speciation. Would you like me to show you that? They just say it isn't "real evolution."

Really? Yes, show me this! Give some credit to your claim.

So far, we haven't seen any from you. Just to check on your "missing links", can you name any two major groups of animals, said to be evolutionarily connected, that don't have a transitional form between them?

Two major groups?
Evolutionists claim all modern species share a common ancestor, and Darwin said that if evolution theory holds merit than there should be fossils of intermediate forms throughout the fossil record. However, there are no missing links discovered to date.
This fact disproves the theory of evolution all on its own, and points to creation being a better theory and explanation as to how all the various forms of life found in the modern world and the fossil record originated.

I challenge you to show me a “missing link”... LoL!

Do you think evolution happens fast or slow?

The fact that modern forms animals appear in the same fossil layers as fossils, that you and other evolutionists claim are the oldest fossil layers that contain life on the planet, suggests evolution does not happen at all.

The first known true bird (or something very, very close to a true bird) lived about 130 million years ago.

What is not “bird like” about that fossil?
You seem to suggest the supposed 130 million year old bird fossil is different from modern bird species in some way... what anatomy is contained in modern birds, which is not contained in this supposed 130 million year old bird fossil?

From:

https://www.phys.org/news/2015-05-fossil-world-earliest-modern-bird.html

A challenge for evolutionary theory

“In recent years, however, researchers have learned two important things that have challenged that narrative. First, many researchers no longer consider Archaeopteryx to be a bird at all, rather a member of a closely-related group of feathered theropod dinosaurs. In addition, new fossil discoveries, especially from China, have dramatically widened our view of the diversity of early birds.

The fossils described in the recent study, published in Nature Communications, were dug out from silt rocks just 10m years younger than those which gave us Archaeopteryx. It is extremely surprising that ornithuromorph birds had evolved and diversified to that extent in just 10m years after Archaeopteryx.”

The fact that birds have been found in fossil form from supposedly +/- 130 million years ago, and contain all the same functional anatomy their modern descendants do today; makes it pretty obvious evolution theory is false, and that creatures are not in a constant state of change: whether you believe this change is slow or fast.
It’s pretty obvious to me, and apparently evolution believing scientists, according to that article; that the archaeopteryx is not an evolutionary link between dinosaurs and modern birds: given fully developed birds have been found that are supposedly just +/- 10 million years younger than the archaeopteryx.

So, why do you believe that birds descended from the archaeopteryx?

:yawn: If you think there's anything worth mentioning therein, be sure to tell us about it.

Nope. YE creationism was invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists. Hovind (who bought his "doctorate" from a "University" which consists of a trailer and some filing cabinets) merely copied their new religion and preaches the parts of it he likes.

He did get several warnings. He thought he was smarter than the law, too.

Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time.

You mean you didn’t watch his video???

All of what he “mentions” is worth mentioning.



P.S. Hey Barbarian!!!


=M=


==============================

Barbie, this video contains information from the Kent Hovind Video which I think is worth mentioning:

 

[mtwilcox]

The people who claimed this were scientists. In science, one corrects ideas based on new information. That's how it works. This is not a failure of science- it i how it is done, and is one of its strengths.

In religion, some people claim to have absolute eternal truths. When new information arises, these people have to deny the information, twist facts, or otherwise blind themselves to reality.

You are right, it’s not a failure of science; instead, it is a failure of evolution theory: a theory which is constantly leading to false assumptions about nature, proving it is a problem in the science communities rather than a solution.

To me Science means “Observable Truth”.

How do you define the term Science?

Evolution theory is obviously not Science, given it is unobservable; evolution theory should be in a different category such as non-science, (nonsense), or fiction.

So, does this mean you admit there are no vestigial organs in living creatures?

This fact hurts the theory of evolution, and gives credit to creation!

Darwin believed that there would be vestigial organs in animals and humans if his theory was true. He even named the appendix as one he knew about, but now we know it does have a function and is not vestigial at all...

God has made everything with a purpose; this is another powerful observable truth, which suggests God made living creatures originally in the same form they appear in Nature today.


=M=


================================


No vestigial organs, or anatomy???

 

[mtwilcox]

Here are some more findings on the subject of wolf and dogs being the same exact species:

https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-22904,00.html

From the link:

“A wolf/dog hybrid is fertile and is in fact not a hybrid at all because wolves and dogs are exactly the same species. The dog is now known scientifically as Canis Lupus Familiaris and not just Canis Familiaris (as it is in older textbooks) in recognition of this fact.”


=M=

 

[chair]

You are right, it’s not a failure of science; instead, it is a failure of evolution theory: a theory which is constantly leading to false assumptions about nature, proving it is a problem in the science communities rather than a solution.

To me Science means “Observable Truth”.

Well, if you ever learn what science really is, let me know.

 

[Right Divider]

Well, if you ever learn what science really is, let me know.

The NEXT sentence in his post was "How do you define the term Science?".

Why didn't you just answer that instead of making that silly post?

 

[JudgeRightly]

The NEXT sentence in his post was "How do you define the term Science?".

Why didn't you just answer that instead of making that silly post?

Because he's a :troll:, that's why.

 

[mtwilcox]

The NEXT sentence in his post was "How do you define the term Science?".

Why didn't you just answer that instead of making that silly post?

Yes, Chair;
The questions that are not rhetorical which I actually expect you to attempt to answer are in Royal Blue, so that they are easy for you to find.
I do this because I know how you evols feel about actually reading something all the way through...


=M=


Here’s one for you Chair:
How is it that peacocks have tail feathers that look like they have eyes on the end of them?

I mean, how do you justify that fact with your theory that you claim fully explains how the various animals came to look the way they do?

This is just one example; however, There are many observable aspects in nature of this nature which seem to strongly suggest a designer, and not a undirected process of successive mutations by reproduction through time as an explanation for how they came to be.

Of course, this is getting off the subject at hand:
How do you define the term Science?

And;

Do you admit there are no vestigial organs in living creatures?

=================================

Time for a Movie!!!

Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution:

Begin!

 

[The Barbarian]

I simply stated what came up on google search, that large dragonflies are part of a genus called “Anex”...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anax_(dragonfly)

What I’m claiming is that dragonflies are all one species, and can be interbred.

Well, let's take a look...

An estimate of 3012 dragonfly species had been described until 2010. These species have been classified into 11 families comprising about 348 genera. They are mainly distributed into three super-families
https://www.dragonfly-site.com/types-of-dragonflies.html

Prove me wrong, Barbie...

Done.

To state what I’m saying more clearly:
All bees can be interbred, all wasps can be interbred.

There are around 25,000 species of bees worldwide, and specifically:

These 25,000 species can be divided into:

over 4000 genera (types of bees)
belonging within 9 groups or 'families', all under the banner - or 'Super-family' - 'Apoidea'.
https://www.buzzaboutbees.net/types-of-bees.html

Show us that. Since they have different-shaped reproductive parts in many cases, your belief (for which you've offered no evidence whatever) seems completely wrong.

All members of any given genus can be interbred and produce viable offspring, because they are the same species.

Sometimes, closely-related species in a genus can reproduce. But mostly, they can't. Speciation is reproductive isolation.

All finches can be interbred,

Show us your evidence for that belief.

(believes black bears can reproduce with polar bears)

Did you go and just assume you are correct again?
Turns out:

“An ursid hybrid is an animal with parents from two different species or subspecies of the Ursidae (bear) family. Species and subspecies of bear known to have produced offspring with another bear species or subspecies include black bears, grizzly bears and polar bears, all of which are members of the Ursus genus.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursid_hybrid

Notice, your article doesn't say that black bears and polar bears can interbreed. You just assumed you were right. But there's no evidence for it. Go back to the article from which you cut and pasted, and look at the chart.

Barbarian observes:
Even many creationist organizations now admit the fact of speciation. Would you like me to show you that? They just say it isn't "real evolution."

Really? Yes, show me this! Give some credit to your claim.

From Answers in Genesis:
As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time.
...
Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/

You don't know much about biology, and you don't know much about creationism, either.

Just to check on your "missing links", can you name any two major groups of animals, said to be evolutionarily connected, that don't have a transitional form between them?

Two major groups?

Any two, that are said to be evolutionarily connected. Here's your chance.

Evolutionists claim all modern species share a common ancestor, and Darwin said that if evolution theory holds merit than there should be fossils of intermediate forms throughout the fossil record. However, there are no missing links discovered to date.

Well, let's see what an honest young Earth creationist has to say about that...

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

Dr. Kurt Wise, YE creationist, in Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

This fact disproves the theory of evolution all on its own

See above. You've been had, once again. There are competent scientists in biology who are YE creationists. You might want to look them up, instead of allowing yourself to be hornswoggled by a criminal who got his degree from a house trailer.

I challenge you to show me a “missing link”... LoL!

Your fellow creationist just showed you dozens.

Do you think evolution happens fast or slow?

Do you think rivers run fast or slow? When you know the answer to that, you'll have your answer about evolution.

The fact that modern forms animals appear in the same fossil layers as fossils, that you and other evolutionists claim are the oldest fossil layers that contain life on the planet

Sounds like a testable claim. Show me the fossil of a modern animal in Precambrian deposits.

(Barbarian shows that true birds go back perhaps 130 million years)

What is not “bird like” about that fossil?

Dinosaur-like skull with closed eye sockets. Large claws on the forelimbs, and a small breastbone. Close, but not quite a modern bird.

You seem to suggest the supposed 130 million year old bird fossil is different from modern bird species in some way... what anatomy is contained in modern birds, which is not contained in this supposed 130 million year old bird fossil?

A large "keeled" breastbone. Bird-like skull with open orbits. No large claws on forelimbs (almost all modern birds have no claws on forelimbs at all).

“In recent years, however, researchers have learned two important things that have challenged that narrative. First, many researchers no longer consider Archaeopteryx to be a bird at all , rather a member of a closely-related group of feathered theropod dinosaurs.

Almost all researchers agree on that. Archie has more dinosaur traits than avian ones. It's very close to the line that gave rise to birds, but it's not in the line that led to birds today.

The fossils described in the recent study, published in Nature Communications, were dug out from silt rocks just 10m years younger than those which gave us Archaeopteryx. It is extremely surprising that ornithuromorph birds had evolved and diversified to that extent in just 10m years after Archaeopteryx.”

Yes. The line that led to true birds diverged from bird-like dinosaurs such as Archaeopteryx somewhat earlier.

The fact that birds have been found in fossil form from supposedly +/- 130 million years ago, and contain all the same functional anatomy their modern descendants do today; makes it pretty obvious evolution theory is false

As you just learned, that's not quite the case. Close, but not the same as modern birds.

It’s pretty obvious to me, and apparently evolution believing scientists, according to that article[/COLOR]; that the archaeopteryx is not an evolutionary link between dinosaurs and modern birds

That's been known for decades. Did you really think scientists say birds evolved from Archaeoperyx?

So,why do you believe that birds descended from the archaeopteryx?

I don't know any scientist, familiar with the issue, that thinks Archie is the ancestor of modern birds. Hovind led you down the garden path one more time.

You mean you didn’t watch his video??? All of what he “mentions” is worth mentioning.

But you can't think of anything? Why is that? And if you don't understand it well enough to tell us about it, what makes you think any of it is right?

 

[Right Divider]

Show us your evidence for that belief.

(believes black bears can reproduce with polar bears)

If and when the originally created kinds diverge to the point of not being able to interbred... this is NOT a problem for the creationist position.

 

[mtwilcox]

From:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursid_hybrid

“All the Ursinae species (i.e., all bears except the giant panda and the spectacled bear) appear able to crossbreed.“

Their offspring are fertile, which means the have remained the same species.

=M=

 

[The Barbarian]

From:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursid_hybrid

“All the Ursinae species (i.e., all bears except the giant panda and the spectacled bear) appear able to crossbreed.“

"appear to be"... "all bears except..."

Doesn't sound very convincing, does it?

 

[JudgeRightly]

"appear to be"... "all bears except..."

Doesn't sound very convincing, does it?

:think:

If and when the originally created kinds diverge to the point of not being able to interbred... this is NOT a problem for the creationist position.

 

[The Barbarian]

:think:

Originally Posted by Right Divider

If and when the originally created kinds diverge to the point of not being able to interbred... this is NOT a problem for the creationist position.

Many forms of creationism do admit to more or less limited forms of common descent. Depending on the creationist, it could only mean new species and genera evolving, or it could be farther than that.