1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Evolution

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by jsmoke, Jun 24, 2017.

  1. kedge

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 5, 2010

    Posts: 3,671

    Yes, they are all false religious teachers. Even scripture is clear on such matters.


    2 Timothy
    For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
    They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
     
  2. Avenged7Fold

    Capodecina

    Joined: Sep 12, 2012

    Posts: 11,497

    Location: Surrey

    Yeeeahhh Jpod, even scriptures are clear on the matter!

    :p:D
     
  3. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 38,316

    Out of interest, do you follow other scriptures that modern churches perhaps ignore these days?

    Like for example do you make sure not to sit in a chair a menstruating woman has sat in?

    Do you ever wear clothes made from both linen and wool?

    Have you ever spoken the name of another god?
     
  4. Mr Badger

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 27, 2009

    Posts: 5,900

    That is an amazing quote. Evolution is by any reasonable standard a sound doctrine and those itchy ears are clearly turning to crazy myths on the Internet that say what they want to hear.
     
  5. hornetstinger

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 6, 2016

    Posts: 5,685

  6. kedge

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 5, 2010

    Posts: 3,671

    It's the cycle of life, and that is what is only seen in the natural world. Evolution is a man made word a man made idea. Millions of years of the evolution of living species is something that has been conjured up in the mind of man/mankind. Evolution is sophistry. It appears to be real and exist but only in the secular mindset.
     
  7. Mr Badger

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 27, 2009

    Posts: 5,900

    You appear to be confusing evolution with religion again. It's a shame that the English language doesn't differentiate more clearly between believing that something is explained by a scientific theory and believing in a magic sky pixie.
     
  8. enkoda

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Mar 3, 2010

    Posts: 1,388

    Location: Hants, UK

    Why should we believe your opinion when the head of the Catholic Church, a man who speaks for God and has had a personal meeting with Jesus, tells us that evolution is not inconsistent with Christian beliefs?

    God is also sophistry. God also appears to be real and exist but only in the religious mindset.
     
  9. Screeeech

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 29, 2014

    Posts: 3,009

    Location: Farnham, Surrey

    Whyyyy oh why do you keep replying to him? :D

    You should all know by now, that he won't even consider any argument against his nonsense, time and time again his position has been blown away - but he doesn't listen to, or even considers any argument, he just repeats the same **** over and over and has done for years...
     
  10. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 5,249

    This is not true. Science is working hard to explain God. God particle, etc.
     
  11. Avenged7Fold

    Capodecina

    Joined: Sep 12, 2012

    Posts: 11,497

    Location: Surrey

    How do you consistently keep spouting absolute ******** on physics?

    It astounds me how you seeming know how to spell these words but know nothing about them.

    Tell me what you think the god particle is about and how it is related to explaining god. Please dumb it down for someone who is qualified and learned in the subject.
     
  12. JRS

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jun 6, 2004

    Posts: 13,327

    Location: Burton-on-Trent

    Um...the Higgs boson was nicknamed the God Particle by the authors of a popular science book:

    Page 22, "The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?" by Leon Lederman with Dick Teresi.

    The man for who the particle is named for, Peter Higgs, isn't overly fond of the nickname (read: utterly hates the nickname). I'm 9/10ths certain that no-one in the scientific community uses the God Particle name. It was literally only called that to satisfy the publishers of Lederman and Teresi's book.
     
  13. enkoda

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Mar 3, 2010

    Posts: 1,388

    Location: Hants, UK

    Science can never explain God because the goalposts will always shift - even if a device was made that could detect the undetectable, hop between dimensions, transcend existence/reality/time or examine the supernatural world and no God was found, the claims would become:
    "the machine doesn't work properly" or
    "well, you're not looking hard enough" or
    "you're looking in the wrong bit" or
    "God doesn't want to be found".

    You can't find something that is made up.
     
  14. Warbie

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 30, 2003

    Posts: 5,863

    Don't expect an answer to that. The glaze eyed filter goes up quite quickly when the answers aren't comfortable.
     
  15. Angilion

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Dec 5, 2003

    Posts: 15,657

    Location: Just to the left of my PC

    Do you realise that verse can be applied to anyone saying anything? Including you. Or any of the currently existing versions of christianity, come to that. You're aware that the new testament is merely a selection of the many christian writings that existed in the 4th century AD, right? A selection made by "a great number of teachers" who went to great lengths to make sure everyone heard only what those teachers wanted them to hear.

    Far from being clear, that verse is so vague that it's completely meaningless.
     
  16. kedge

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 5, 2010

    Posts: 3,671

    Is that not what a mainstream church leader might say? it would be foolish of such a person to side with evolution, ignorant fools do not recognise the deceptive teaching of evolution. Only a fool like that would deny divine creation.
     
  17. Angilion

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Dec 5, 2003

    Posts: 15,657

    Location: Just to the left of my PC

    Two main things wrong with that:

    1) You've picked a vague and meaningless verse and pretended it says what you want it to say. So not only are you listening only to "what your itching ears want to hear" about reality, you're also reading "what your itching eyes want to see" about your own scripture.

    2) Theists who acknowledge the existence of evolution don't deny divine creation. (EDIT: if their religion calls for divine creation - not all do).

    Like most if not all evolution deniers, you're constantly trying to pretend that evolution and abiogenesis are the same thing. You know they aren't, so you're being dishonest as a political tool. You know evolution exists but you want to deny it and persuade others to deny it, so you have to link it to the far less known abiogenesis and pretend the uncertainty about abiogenesis also applies to evolution (which it doesn't and you know that too).

    EDIT: Just in case anyone doesn't know the way theists, particularly Abrahamic theists, can acknowledge the existence of evolution and believe in divine creation, here's a summary:

    <insert god(s) here> are extremely knowledgeable and extremely powerful. Most theists believe their god is literally omniscient and omnipotent.

    Such an entity or entities would be able to use evolution as a tool and be certain of the outcome, either by adjusting things as required or simply by seeding the process and knowing the outcome in advance.

    Abrahamic theists believe their god is omniscient and omnipotent. They believe it created the entire universe and that it created life! It's entirely consistent for them to believe it created evolution and that it created certain conditions which it knew would result in humans several billion years later.

    It could even be argued that abrahamic theists who deny the existence of evolution are bordering on heresy because they're limiting the knowledge and power of their god. I wouldn't go that far myself, but they're on dodgy ground theologically.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019
  18. jpod

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jun 16, 2011

    Posts: 1,624

    Location: Cheshire

    It's the cycle of life, and that is what is only seen in the natural world.
    What about your David Hume teachings, you cannot observe something and determine anything about it's cause.

    Millions of years of the evolution of living species is something that has been conjured up in the mind of man/mankind.
    Millions in your mind. In scientist's minds it is billions of years and the theory is proven.

    ** MOD EDIT - Make your point, have your onion but don't get personal.. ***
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 17, 2019
  19. kedge

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 5, 2010

    Posts: 3,671

    Like I said in a previous post who is really moving the goal posts? again may I repeat something for others to consider? theists who teach that God caused an ape-like creature to evolve into a modern man is nonsense, but some will interpret whatever way they want to interpret. This can be the same for many things even millions of years of the evolution of species. The methods for and the determined age of fossils is often questionable especially creatures or animals that are claimed by some paleontologists to be hundreds of millions of years old? yet other palaeontologists have carbon dated several well preserved bones from different dinosaurs, they took those samples and conducted a scientific test using the more accurate accelerator mass spectrometer, the results showed less than forty thousand years +/-, these paleontolgists also used the same method to determine the age of a freshly killed seal and the results showed an age for the seal as being over one thousand years old, how on earth can that be? of course many will simply claim it to be false but I would encourage anyone that might just be observing this thread to do their own study and research and make their own mind over, draw your own conclusions, that is what I have done and I can tell you that it is an eye opener and it is not what one might think it really is, just because someone claims to have authority over some scientific discipline, remember this, they may have great knowledge about the natural world and how things operate within it but they are not the final arbiter on all matters relating to the natural world and human behaviour, also remember that there is a lot of corruption and deception in this world.

    Your twisted words not mine and besides I never made such a claim so I am calling you out on that one. I make myself clear on such matters, change occurs within species and as far as I am aware no human challenges this well observed and scientifically irrefutable phenomenon. What is challenged is the claim that one species can evolve into a completely different species and that this occurred naturally over hundreds of millions of years, and I am not talking about metamorphosis which is another well observed irrefutable phenomenon.


    Absolute utter nonsense as far as I am concerned. But, if that is their reasoning on matters then so be it, when judgement day arrives I won't nor could I ever be the final arbiter. A man will reap whatever he sows.

    Define evolution?
     
  20. Angilion

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Dec 5, 2003

    Posts: 15,657

    Location: Just to the left of my PC

    Do you believe that humans are composed of 4 humours and all diseases are caused by an imbalance in those humours? Or did you "move the goal posts" to account for more accurate knowledge?

    It's at least no more nonsensical than teaching that <insert god here> created humans from dust or tears or semen or blood or whatever.

    Thank you for providing such a perfect example of the deception and ignorance required to deny evolution.

    As anyone with even a fraction of a clue knows, carbon dating only works for things that were alive quite recently. Even in a best case scenario, it's impossible to use carbon dating to determine any date more than about 30,000 years. So if you carbon date a sample 50,000 years old, a sample 100,000 years old, a sample 100,000,000 years old...any and all samples older than ~30,000 years...you will get the same results.

    You either have absolutely no understanding of carbon dating (ignorance) or you're lying (deception). It has to be one or the other.

    Here's the most recent example of you making that claim in this thread:

    As you well know, evolution has nothing to do with creation of life. That's abiogenesis...which, as I said, you are trying to pretend is the same thing as evolution.

    Would you like me to provide a dozen more examples of you making that claim? All it would take would be me wasting some time trawling through your posts in this thread. They're your "twisted words", not mine.[/QUOTE]