22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution

[K1A1L50u]

What does this have to do with Bitcoin?

Oh - I get it!  You are saying that Bitcoin cannot exist because it is not mentioned in Genesis.  Mystery solved!

[K1A1L50u]

A fundamental characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes testable and correct predictions.
The bible seems much worse than chance on that score.

This atheist-baiting is very un-Christian like.  Unless you are a Machiavelli-Christian, in which case anything goes.

[Stousers]

14...... Oh man. It's scary that people don't understand the term "theory" when used used in a scientific terminology.

[BitChick]

What does this have to do with Bitcoin?

Oh - I get it!  You are saying that Bitcoin cannot exist because it is not mentioned in Genesis.  Mystery solved!

I think Bitcoin is mentioned in Revelation though.

[bythesea]

Some questions are simply brilliant, you really have to be brain washed to believe in a talking snake, talking burning bush, woman from a rib.. But hey, lets face it, we all walk on a flat Earth that is a center of universe and its 6000 years old, give or take few decades... But what i find even more funny is that when we ( we = humans ) broke the DNA code we found the same patterns in every animal/plant since life came to be... But i guess they need more...

[BitChick]

Some questions are simply brilliant, you really have to be brain washed to believe in a talking snake, talking burning bush, woman from a rib.. But hey, lets face it, we all walk on a flat Earth that is a center of universe and its 6000 years old, give or take few decades... But what i find even more funny is that when we ( we = humans ) broke the DNA code we found the same patterns in every animal/plant since life came to be... But i guess they need more...

I could say so much but just be ridiculed so I will just leave this one quote: "Now the genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn't sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; there is no possibility of change."

This is taken from this article: http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/monkeybusiness.htm

[BCEmporium]

But still, in this subject I believe it has more to do with want to believe then actually believe.
Many of religious people aren't dumb, they are perfectly aware of the religion flaws, lack of coherence and myths. The problem is that science is ice cold and deliver the news in a pretty icy way.

We want and actually need some sort of purpouse, religion made up God and Gods for that end. Not much of a purpouse anyway to roam around to "praise God", but still a purpouse. Science on the other end just tell us "hey! You are just a sort of chimp with a larger brain, evolved totally random among the other animal species"... not much of PR here. 

[FalconFly]

I could say so much but just be ridiculed so I will just leave this one quote: "Now the genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn't sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; there is no possibility of change."

This is taken from this article: (obviously junk)

So, more than 3 genetic code fragments changes kill an animal ? That's total news to all those who changed significantly more than that already.
Additionally, humans amongst themselves have differences far exceeding 3 genomes, heck a hamster or a cat has more genetic spread in its own species.

As usual, if some religious bullshit sites spread MUD, one is better off referencing actual scientific ones. "TrueAuthority.com" should rather read "InsaneBullShit.com" to be honest about itself.

...but tell that to a completely uneducated religious nut, waste of time.

PS.
That one quote was enough for you to ridicule yourself. Mission accomplished.


Achievement Unlocked : Make a complete, brainless idiot out of yourself

[bythesea]

Some questions are simply brilliant, you really have to be brain washed to believe in a talking snake, talking burning bush, woman from a rib.. But hey, lets face it, we all walk on a flat Earth that is a center of universe and its 6000 years old, give or take few decades... But what i find even more funny is that when we ( we = humans ) broke the DNA code we found the same patterns in every animal/plant since life came to be... But i guess they need more...

I could say so much but just be ridiculed so I will just leave this one quote: "Now the genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn't sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; there is no possibility of change."

This is taken from this article: http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/monkeybusiness.htm

Please do say..... I cant w8 to read what will religious person write here. but please explain if the Bible is one and only truth, wtf is wrong with Earth, it should be flat.... Aliens, it must have been aliens who made it round.

[BitChick]

What I believe or what you believe is irrelevant to what the truth really is.

The question is, is there absolute truth?  Is what we are being taught in science today "absolute truth" or just "theories?" Should we put our complete faith in science then?  Have scientists ever been wrong?  Are the theories, such as Darwinian theory, believable enough to override our belief in God because of it?

For many people that answer is "YES!  Absolutely!"  And that is a choice you are totally allowed to make.

I have a right not to put my faith in Darwinian evolution don't I?  If you are trying to persuade me though please give me the respect I will give you in letting you choose to believe what I choose to.

[bythesea]

What I believe or what you believe is irrelevant to what the truth really is.

The question is, is there absolute truth?  Is what we are being taught in science today "absolute truth" or just "theories?" Should we put our complete faith in science then?  Have scientists ever been wrong?  Are the theories, such as Darwinian theory, believable enough to override our belief in God because of it?

For many people that answer is "YES!  Absolutely!"  And that is a choice you are totally allowed to make.

I have a right not to put my faith in Darwinian evolution don't I?  If you are trying to persuade me though please give me the respect I will give you in letting you choose to believe what I choose to.

Problem with religion is that everything is an absolute truth ( regarding religion ) and you stay behind that without even questioning anything regarding religion and the Bible, but yet you ask of science to provide you with the facts and when you are given you chose to ignore them. Evolution is a proven fact, you can see it but many chose o ignore it, humans have been manipulated genome or animals for a long time now, but yet you still think natural selection and life was created by all might God?

Bible has been proven to be a SF book written 2000 years ago. I just hope we don't get back to dark ages when religious people used to kill scientists for daring to say against holy Book and all might good.

But you are free to believe that a loving God can create sickness, starvation, blind children, rapists who rape them....

[BitChick]

What I believe or what you believe is irrelevant to what the truth really is.

The question is, is there absolute truth?  Is what we are being taught in science today "absolute truth" or just "theories?" Should we put our complete faith in science then?  Have scientists ever been wrong?  Are the theories, such as Darwinian theory, believable enough to override our belief in God because of it?

For many people that answer is "YES!  Absolutely!"  And that is a choice you are totally allowed to make.

I have a right not to put my faith in Darwinian evolution don't I?  If you are trying to persuade me though please give me the respect I will give you in letting you choose to believe what I choose to.

Problem with religion is that everything is an absolute truth ( regarding religion ) and you stay behind that without even questioning anything regarding religion and the Bible, but yet you ask of science to provide you with the facts and when you are given you chose to ignore them. Evolution is a proven fact, you can see it but many chose o ignore it, humans have been manipulated genome or animals for a long time now, but yet you still think natural selection and life was created by all might God?

Bible has been proven to be a SF book written 2000 years ago. I just hope we don't get back to dark ages when religious people used to kill scientists for daring to say against holy Book and all might good.

But you are free to believe that a loving God can create sickness, starvation, blind children, rapists who rape them....

I am extremely sad that you view God in that way.  I am also sad that it is perhaps because of how you perceive Christians to be.  It is God's kindness that leads us to repentance.  When we can really grasp how great His love is for us, that is when we start to see things differently.

You are right that there is sickness, starvation, blindness, rapists, abuse etc.  I know first hand how God feels about the abuse, unfortunately.  He spoke to me as a child and said, "I am crying too" when I asked Him why it was happening to me.  That helped me at least understand I was not alone.  We are not giving credit where credit is due for evil things.  Satan is said to be the deceiver and he roams the earth looking for ways to "steal, kill and destroy" and takes great pleasure in harming us.  It is his way of "getting back at God" if you will for the judgement put on him.  So if you want to be ticked off at someone, how about him?  That is where my anger is directed.  And I take comfort in knowing that in the end God will make all thing right.

Unfortunately,  I believe that science has become an excuse to not believe in God.  It is a way for many people (not all), who don't want to believe in God or be accountable to one, to have a great excuse not to. 

[protokol]

Archaeopteryx (/ˌɑrkiːˈɒptərɨks/ AR-kee-OP-tər-iks), sometimes referred to by its German name Urvogel ("original bird" or "first bird"), is a genus of early bird that is transitional between feathered dinosaurs and modern birds.

One of my favourite fossils, I remember reading about it 20 years ago when I was a kid. Since then, a lot more evidence has surfaced to suggest today's birds are distant relatives of dinosaurs - likely that they are related to the very few small dinosaurs that escaped the extinction event.

[BCEmporium]

Unfortunately,  I believe that science has become an excuse to not believe in God.  It is a way for many people (not all), who don't want to believe in God or be accountable to one, to have a great excuse not to. 

So long for the "it should be a choice" thing of your previous post, eh?
Nobody uses science to "not want to believe in God", that's outrageous absurd! One can is choose to believe in God or Gods for whatever reason. Science is not "believable", there's no such thing as "belief in science", it either does work and can provide solid evidence of such, or doesn't, nothing to "believe" there. Your car doesn't work because "you have faith".

[protokol]

Why doesn't God just destroy Satan? God is all-powerful and omnipresent after all.

Maybe he doesn't want to kill/fight fire with fire. But he was happy to send his only son down to earth to get crucified.

If he really has influence on humankind, surely he would stop all the suffering and create some sort of new planet for us all to live on in peace.

Or maybe he's just not real, and was made up by people, due to their previous lack of knowledge about physics and the universe. I know which explanation I believe.

Back to the Evo vs ID debate, yes it would be nice if there were MORE evidence backing the evolutionary theory (same as any other scientific theory - It can never be proven totally 100%) But the evidence we do have is surely better than the evidence of ID, which is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

I know which one I'd bet my bitcoins on.

[BitChick]

Why doesn't God just destroy Satan? God is all-powerful and omnipresent after all.

Maybe he doesn't want to kill/fight fire with fire. But he was happy to send his only son down to earth to get crucified.

If he really has influence on humankind, surely he would stop all the suffering and create some sort of new planet for us all to live on in peace.

Or maybe he's just not real, and was made up by people, due to their previous lack of knowledge about physics and the universe. I know which explanation I believe.

Back to the Evo vs ID debate, yes it would be nice if there were MORE evidence backing the evolutionary theory (same as any other scientific theory - It can never be proven totally 100%) But the evidence we do have is surely better than the evidence of ID, which is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

I know which one I'd bet my bitcoins on.

Um.  Have you read the book of Revelation?  Satan will get his due reward!  Also, God will stop suffering.  He will "Wipe the tears from our eyes" the Bible says and "He will make a new heaven and and  new earth."  So there will be a "new planet" if you will where we will live in peace.

[BitChick]

Unfortunately,  I believe that science has become an excuse to not believe in God.  It is a way for many people (not all), who don't want to believe in God or be accountable to one, to have a great excuse not to. 

So long for the "it should be a choice" thing of your previous post, eh?
Nobody uses science to "not want to believe in God", that's outrageous absurd! One can is choose to believe in God or Gods for whatever reason. Science is not "believable", there's no such thing as "belief in science", it either does work and can provide solid evidence of such, or doesn't, nothing to "believe" there. Your car doesn't work because "you have faith".

Belief in God is totally a choice we have. 

But as for you saying, "Nobody uses science to 'not want to believe in God'  here is an example to consider:

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.
‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’

[BCEmporium]

That's a total misunderstanding of what science is! And that's the major issue while talking with religious folks, they think "science is a religion" so we can lower it to our grounds and discuss it over insanity of this or those in the way we discuss between Christians, Jews and Muslims.

Too bad... it doesn't work like that! Sorry to disappoint you.

Science is NOT a belief system, nobody "believes in Darwin", just his theories have way more ground than the bullshit you can find at the Bible, Torah or Quran, but it does NOT make Darwin God or even "right". If you can provide a better theory, and by better I mean better constructed and supported by evidence - not Godly bullshit - his theories will drop to second line and eventually will be ditched.
So that's all that resumes science: Science is Science, nothing to believe all to discuss.

As footnote, before anyone goes that way: "Scientology" has absolutely nothing to do with science. That thing is just yet another religious bullshit branch.

[BCEmporium]

Um.  Have you read the book of Revelation?  Satan will get his due reward!  Also, God will stop suffering.  He will "Wipe the tears from our eyes" the Bible says and "He will make a new heaven and and  new earth."  So there will be a "new planet" if you will where we will live in peace.

LOL! Revelations, I wonder what drug whoever wrote that was under! Magic mushrooms, maybe.

God doesn't exist without Satan. Who invented one, invented the other. They are not real creatures of any sort, they are representations of Good and Evil, the eternal struggle you can observe on most anything. The best example can be the air pressure, your body just keeps its shape because your internal pressure (we can call it Good) matches the external atmospheric pressure (we can call it Evil), but if you get into an environment where "Good" or "Evil" prevails over the other your body will either be crushed or explodes.

But even between "Good and Evil" we have relativity. What is "Good" for one can be "Evil" for the other. How to manage that? 

[protokol]

Why doesn't God just destroy Satan? God is all-powerful and omnipresent after all.

Maybe he doesn't want to kill/fight fire with fire. But he was happy to send his only son down to earth to get crucified.

If he really has influence on humankind, surely he would stop all the suffering and create some sort of new planet for us all to live on in peace.

Or maybe he's just not real, and was made up by people, due to their previous lack of knowledge about physics and the universe. I know which explanation I believe.

Back to the Evo vs ID debate, yes it would be nice if there were MORE evidence backing the evolutionary theory (same as any other scientific theory - It can never be proven totally 100%) But the evidence we do have is surely better than the evidence of ID, which is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

I know which one I'd bet my bitcoins on.

Um.  Have you read the book of Revelation?  Satan will get his due reward!  Also, God will stop suffering.  He will "Wipe the tears from our eyes" the Bible says and "He will make a new heaven and and  new earth."  So there will be a "new planet" if you will where we will live in peace.

I haven't fully read Revelation, but I think I know the gist of it. It's to do with the 7 angels with 7 plagues, and an apocalyptic scenario where Satan is destroyed, along with everyone who doesn't have faith in God. Something like that, right?

Shame he hasn't done anything about it yet, your God seems to be taking his time.

Anyway, I don't see how you can just quote the Bible as evidence for anything at all, seeing as it was written by hundreds of people a mere couple of thousand years ago.

What if I believe in the religious writings of Ancient Egypt: According to the Book of the Dead, when we die we are transported to Osiris's realm of the "Duat", where we must pass a series of brutal tests involving supernatural monsters, before we are led into the final test by Anubis. Here, our hearts are weighed against the goddess Maat (the heart represents the weight of our sins). If the scales balance, we get to go into the afterlife. But if not, then our heart is devoured by another deity, Ammit, ending our journey into the afterlife prematurely. 

Now that sounds ridiculous, right? But this Egyptian text (one of the more modern texts incidentally) is well over 3000 years old. The book of Revelation is less than 2000 years old. Why would you not believe the older text, and put so much faith in the newer one?

Answer: It's because you were taught that the Bible was truth when you were younger, but were not taught that the Egyptian writings were the truth. (correct me if I'm wrong)

Neither have any evidence that they are true or false, so please stop quoting one text (the bible) as truth when anyone could quote any other religious text as an alternate truth.

Also, re: Noah's Ark (and the Bible in general tbh), how do you explain that there absolutely no references to any creatures/entities that weren't known of at the time (eg subatomic particles/viruses/bacteria/colossal squid/dinosaurs/megalodons/pluto/asteroid belt/exoplanets/galaxies/white dwarves/radiation etc. etc.). It seems that there would be at least the tiniest thing in there somewhere, if everything had been created.

Bit of a coincidence that everything that god created was already known about by humans, no?