If You Deny Human Evolution, How Do You Explain The Fossil Records?

[Michael Cole]

The superstition of evolution does not address abiogenesis. Of course it doesn't. Problem is that our Apostles of Evolution try to pretend otherwise. Evolution does not answer the question of life. It cannot. Case closed.

Molecular biology won't pump up my flat tire. It's useless. Case closed.

You're lashing out. Embarrassing.

 

[Gordy327]

Every Christian since Jesus’s death has believed the End Times were going to happen any day now. They have all been wrong and based on evidence will continue to be wrong.

Certain Christians here are still wrong, especially about the latest "end time" that was supposed to happen April 8. They just don't get it.

 

[Juin]

Is the Theory of Gravity a superstition because it doesn’t explain how diseases spread?

It becomes a superstition in the hands of those who claim it can explain spread of diseases. The Apostles of Evolution make of science a superstition.

 

[Juin]

Science is based on logic, reason, and verifiable evidence. Abiogenesis has all three supporting it. It isn’t superstition.

The Apostles of Evolution are not guided by logic nor reason. Abiogenesis is the fundamental starting point. If you chose to punt....

 

[Gordy327]

Nonsense is thinking life came about from nothing...

More nonsense (and delusion) thinking God did it.

 

[Gordy327]

The Apostles of Evolution are not guided by logic nor reason. Abiogenesis is the fundamental starting point. If you chose to punt....

You do realize abiogenesis and evolution are 2 different things, right?

 

[Questerr]

It becomes a superstition in the hands of those who claim it can explain spread of diseases. The Apostles of Evolution make of science a superstition.

No scientists claim the Theory of Evolution explains the origins of life. Evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life.

Abiogensis, a series of competing hypotheses with varying levels of evidence, explain the origin of life.

Now that you have been educated, will you cease lying about Evolution?

I’m betting not.

 

[Questerr]

You do realize abiogenesis and evolution are 2 different things, right?

He does not and he’s not honest enough to admit he’s wrong.

 

[Juin]

What's useless is entering a discussion with no knowledge of its contents. Why?

I stumbled on a gathering of Apostles of Evolution. Why should anything make sense?

Evolution explains the diversity of life forms. It does not explain how the first life forms occurred. Two different things.

Then why are the Apostles of Evolution sneering at the Book of Genesis when their doctrine is as equally empty handed?

 

[Juin]

You do realize abiogenesis and evolution are 2 different things, right?

That distinction pops up when an Apostle of Evolution has to concede that he cannot address the first and most fundamental issue; the beginning

 

[Questerr]

I stumbled on a gathering of Apostles of Evolution. Why should anything make sense?





Then why are the Apostles of Evolution sneering at the Book of Genesis when their doctrine is as equally empty handed?

The Theory of Evolution has mountains of verifiable objective evidence and can be used in predictable ways with practical applications in multiple industries.

What in the Book of Genesis is comparable?

 

[Michael Cole]

Yes you could. If you have parts that designed to fit together and function, all you need is logic, reason, and time to experiment and eventually you will assemble what it is.

You don’t need mindless faith in a book of mythology.

Not to mention that historically, writing is a fairly new invention compared to agriculture, tool making and weaponry.

The answer to this problem as I've raised it has been, "Word of mouth!" I've never gotten an answer to the obvious follow up; if word of mouth was adequate for millennia, why would God invent writing?

How many pieces were reassembled from the Challenger? Not exactly comparable, but I'm guessing it's in the many millions.

 

[Questerr]

That distinction pops up when an Apostle of Evolution has to concede that he cannot address the first and most fundamental issue; the beginning

Your position is as stupid as someone claiming the Theory of Gravity of explain allow germs cause diseases.

Abiogenesis and Evolution two separate things explaining separate issues. You keep conflating them, not out of ignorance at this point, but out of deliberate dishonesty, aka Bearing False Witness.

When you go to hell for having committed the sin of Bearing False Witness unapologetically, will you blame yourself?

 

[Questerr]

Not to mention that historically, writing is a fairly new invention compared to agriculture, tool making and weaponry.

The answer to this problem as I've raised it has been, "Word of mouth!" I've never gotten an answer to the obvious follow up; if word of mouth was adequate for millennia, why would God invent writing?

How many pieces were reassembled from the Challenger? Not exactly comparable, but I'm guessing it's in the many millions.

But the Bible is God’s word!

Well how do you know it’s God’s Word?

Because it says it is.

Why do you trust what the Bible says it’s true?

Because it’s God’s Word.

But how do you…

It’s nonsense circular logic.

 

[Dragonfly]

That distinction pops up when an Apostle of Evolution has to concede that he cannot address the first and most fundamental issue; the beginning

What created your "god"?
What's the "beginning" when it comes to your "god"?

Try to avoid the special pleading if possible.

 

[Michael Cole]

It becomes a superstition in the hands of those who claim it can explain spread of diseases. The Apostles of Evolution make of science a superstition.

Thank you. That was good.

 

[Juin]

No scientists claim the Theory of Evolution explains the origins of life. Evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life.

Then why are you here fighting with the Book of Genesis? The Book of Genesis addresses the origins of life. The Apostles of Evolution sneer with an air of superiority, appointing themselves the custodians of science, and suggesting strongly they have the answers. Actually you don't.

Abiogensis, a series of competing hypotheses with varying levels of evidence, explain the origin of life.
Now that you have been educated, will you cease lying about Evolution?
I’m betting not.

lol of course, a series of empty competing superstitious. It's too generous to call wild speculations hypotheses

 

[Gordy327]

That distinction pops up when an Apostle of Evolution has to concede that he cannot address the first and most fundamental issue; the beginning

Again, 2 separate things. You seem confused about that.

 

[Juin]

What created your "god"?

Oh you kindly have assigned me one. How nice of you.

What's the "beginning" when it comes to your "god"?
Try to avoid the special pleading if possible.

If you want us to argue religions, then let's do so. I am only arguing the science of it.

 

[Questerr]

Then why are you here fighting with the Book of Genesis? The Book of Genesis addresses the origins of life. The Apostles of Evolution sneer with an air of superiority, appointing themselves the custodians of science, and suggesting strongly they have the answers. Actually you don't.






lol of course, a series of empty competing superstitious. It's too generous to call wild speculations hypotheses

You fellow creationists are arguing that the Book of Genesis invalidates evolution. Should I not be listening to them?

Each hypothesis of Abiogenesis has supporting evidence which are subject to and have been independently verified. How is that “wild speculation”?

 

[Juin]

Again, 2 separate things. You seem confused about that.

Are you pleading the fifth?

 

[Questerr]

Oh you kindly have assigned me one. How nice of you.






If you want us to argue religions, then let's do so. I am only arguing the science of it.

You have zero science “of it”. Science is based on objectively verifiable evidence. Religion has none of it.

 

[Questerr]

Are you pleading the fifth?

In this court, you are bearing false witness.

 

[Juin]

In this court, you are bearing false witness.

Apostles of Evolution are the frauds here. They are no scientists, just superstition masquerading as science. True scientists avoid the world of superstitions. Apostles of Evolution are the exception, but that is because they are as scientists as alchemists were scientists

 

[Michael Cole]

I stumbled on a gathering of Apostles of Evolution.

Are they a punk band?

Why should anything make sense?

I dunno. I don't like punk. Sid and Nancy was a great flick, though.

Then why are the Apostles of Evolution sneering at the Book of Genesis when their doctrine is as equally empty handed?

Because the Book of Genesis stole their drummer?