|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Responses to Advocates of Darwin’s Garbage Theory
« Back to club forum
| ||||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
coram_deo 04-Sep-21, 13:44 |
 No, it isn't. But that we have no real idea how abiogenesis occurred is a fair criticism. I yield a second point.>> Actually, we do know how life began. “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:20-27) |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Sep-21, 15:38 |
Maybe. This begs the question of where that intelligence arose. I'm unconvinced of any overarching reason to accept the premise, given we see no intelligence at play in the evolution of life.>> Maybe?! Do you have any idea how complex DNA is? Mosey over to the “Why Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is Garbage” thread and read the article I posted a couple of days ago about DNA. You think that kind of incredible and purposeful complexity happens by blind chance? |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Sep-21, 15:54 |
Demonstrably false, in that it has been demonstrated. Some mutations are gene duplications, which double "information" by definition.>> So two copies of the same newspaper contain more information than one copy of that newspaper? Here is a more in-depth reply to your assertion: “How can an old gene learn new tricks? That has long been a problem for evolutionists trying to explain how increasing genetic complexity evolved. Despite implicit faith that ‘gene duplications allow evolution of genes with new functions,’ no one has actually shown how that could happen. Now, scientists from Sweden’s Uppsala University and the University of California, Davis, believe that they have witnessed just such evolution of a novel genetic function. Because some random mutations involve gene duplications, geneticist Susumu Ohno in 1970 suggested that duplicate copies of genes acquired new and useful functions, got enhanced by natural selection, and added to the genetic complexity of evolving organisms. Since mutations are generally not helpful, however, evolutionists have had a hard time showing how they could survive the process of natural selection long enough to become useful. Since mutations actually don’t add any new information, they have also had a hard time coming up with any examples to demonstrate how copies of old genes could acquire new functions. To get around this problem, John Roth, Dan Andersson, and their colleagues decided to assume that the useful function to be ‘acquired’ was already present and only needed to be amplified by time, chance, and natural selection. Many genes have multiple functions. In their model, they chose a strain of the bacteria Salmonella that had lost the main gene needed to make the amino acid tryptophan. However, the bacteria had another gene, one for making the amino acid histidine, which was also able to produce tryptophan, albeit weakly. They grew the bacteria in a tryptophan-deprived environment for 3,000 generations and discovered that the surviving population had multiple copies of the ‘dual-function gene.’ Those with duplication mutations had been favored for survival because they had greater ability to make the tryptophan they needed. Microbial evolutionary biochemist Antony Dean of the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, commenting on the discovery, said, ‘Ohno will go down as a very important historical figure, but Andersson has the new model for how genes duplicate. His theory is square one.’ The main problem with using this discovery to support evolutionary theory is that no new function actually came into existence. The dual-function gene already existed in the organism. The genetic information was not new; it was already there. Natural selection in the tryptophan-deprived environment favored the survival and reproduction of those bacteria that had multiple copies of the gene, but no novel function had to evolve. The original bacteria already had a redundant way to make tryptophan. By analogy, a book contains information. A million copies of the book do not contain a million-times more information, just more copies of the same information. These bacteria did not evolve an innovation. They did not acquire new genetic information, as duplication of an existing gene is nothing new. They did not even do anything new or innovative with old information. All they did was experience a duplication mutation that allowed them to efficiently express an existing ability to manufacture tryptophan. Cornell University evolutionary geneticist Richard Meisel cautions that this evolutionary mechanism may be limited to bacteria and viruses, which brings up another rather obvious point: nothing about this discovery provides a mechanism for Salmonella to become any new kind of more complex organism, only another variety of Salmonella. Mutations—even duplications that provide extra copies of something useful—do not provide new genetic information or the raw material that ‘moves bacteria in an upward evolutionary direction.’ ” answersingenesis.org |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Sep-21, 16:22 |
True. Score one for the creationist. Random mutation is creative. Evolution has two legs, not just one.>> Actually, without natural selection, random mutations are meaningless as far as the theory of evolution goes so I think Alcorn was right to choose natural selection in his fourth point. But you seem to be suggesting that something that is random can also be creative. I don’t think that makes any sense. But looking at it more broadly, you seem to be suggesting that evolution, which is an unguided process that relies solely on blind chance, also has an expression or manifestation of intelligence (creativity.) I don’t think an unguided process involving blind chance can be considered “creative.” |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Sep-21, 17:40 |
Nebraska man was contrived, as was Piltdown. No others widely accepted by anthropologists. Neandertal distinguishing characteristics appear in no modern humans, and more ancient hominids deviate further yet fom us. Nothing subjective about it.>> Nebraska man and Piltdown man were not only contrived, they were both evolutionary hoaxes. Neanderthal is the only “ancient hominid” you mentioned, but unless I’m mistaken, Neanderthals were considered to be fully human and some modern humans actually have Neanderthal DNA. “When people think of Neanderthals, an evolutionary image of primitive cave men might come to mind. This is bolstered by the perception that they looked very different from modern humans. However, Neanderthals bore four key features that assure us they were human and confirm the Genesis account of humanity’s recent origin. First, Neanderthal (pronounced Nee–AN–der–tahl) peoples acted quite human. Instead of leaving their dead out in the open, they buried them in caves found in Europe and parts of Asia. This shows a very human-like spiritual awareness. Also, they and their contemporaries left behind artifacts like musical instruments, tools, cosmetics, jewelry, and purses, demonstrating human-like intelligence and creativity. Second, in-depth analyses of ancient DNA extracted from Neanderthal bones show an overall similarity to modern human DNA. Certain modern human populations even contain Neanderthal DNA sequences. Third, Neanderthal bone structure differences should not overshadow their basically human form. They had prominent eyebrow ridges and sloped foreheads, and their upper arm bones tended to be shorter in proportion to their lower arm bones than those of most modern people. But one can find the same features in living humans. Neanderthals didn’t look that different after all. Fourth, modern-looking ancients intermarried with Neanderthal people. Some Neanderthal burial sites include individuals that looked just like the folks across the street. Other sites reveal individuals with in-between features. And since Noah’s Flood formed the rock layers with the caves that Neanderthals later used to bury their dead, we can assume that these ancient peoples descended from Noah. These four features (burials, DNA, skeletons, and in-betweens) show that Neanderthals were certainly human. So how did Neanderthal features, only rarely found in today’s population, concentrate into one group that went extinct? A clue can be found in modern humans. Europeans and Asians have different body ratios. Europeans have shorter torsos with longer arms, while Asians have longer torsos with shorter arms. Most likely, each of these people groups descended from one or a group of ancestors with these physical traits. Those ancestral fathers must have moved apart, just as Genesis 11 says happened to the 70 families at the Tower of Babel. Each family probably carried its unique language and skeletal features. Similarly, Neanderthals could have descended from one of these 70 families. If so, then Neanderthals went extinct like many ancient nations, but not before they shared some genes and traits with other groups. No wonder they looked so similar to you and me.” www.icr.org You might also be interested in this: “The archaic human species Homo erectus has been portrayed as an important ape-to-man transitional link. However, these fossils don’t provide any real evidence of evolution. Many paleontologists and a majority of creationists think their unusual features are nothing more than variants of human traits and not transitional at all.” Article continues at: www.icr.org |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Sep-21, 17:51 |
No, they are not. We can measure radioactive decay. Nuclear processes are governed by the weak interaction, in which there is no variableness nor shadow of turning. We have been measuring decay rates for a century. They are not subject to chemical catalysts, pressure, temperature, light, or any other force outside nuclear forces. If they could be altered we could use this for energy or in cleaning up radioactive superfund sites.>> What, if anything, are you disputing in the body of Randy Alcorn’s objection to point number 7? Here it is: “Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine a rock’s age assume that the original amounts of parent and daughter isotopes can be accurately estimated, that no isotopes moved into or out of the rock after its formation (closed system), and that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. However, the original amounts of parent and daughter isotopes can rarely be estimated with reasonable accuracy. In addition, it is commonly acknowledged that hydrothermal fluids (hot, mineral-rich water) often transport both parent and daughter isotopes from one rock to another, invalidating the closed system assumption. In fact, this process is often cited as a reason for rejecting dates that don’t fit the evolutionary timeline. What is not commonly known is that radioactive dating methods usually give a number of different results for the same formation and often even for the same rock! In practice, geologists choose the “correct” age from among these different results based on the age expected from the evolutionary timeline. This is a classic case of circular thinking! Also, different methods give different results, with heavier isotopes consistently giving older ages than lighter isotopes for the same rock. This pattern should not exist if radioactive decay rates have always been the same. Furthermore, lava flows with known historical ages often date as millions or even billions of years old. If radioactive dating methods can be off by so much for rocks of known age, how can they be considered reliable for rocks of unknown age?” www.epm.org |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Sep-21, 18:00 |
They are certainly not evidence of any intelligent creation. Sloppy, incompetent creation, perhaps.>> So you agree they’re not evidence for evolution? I think, as far as your claim about “sloppy, incompetent creation,” you should have read the text under this objection: “Evolutionists point to vestigial organs (supposedly “leftover” body structures with no know function) as evidence of evolution. However, it’s impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there’s always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. In fact, over 100 organs formerly thought of as vestigial are now known to perform essential functions. Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs and only a small number are still considered vestigial. It is increasingly clear that vestigial organs are not the result of evolution but simply examples of scientific ignorance. It’s also worth noting that even if an organ were no longer needed (e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. Proponents of evolution need to provide examples of developing organs that are not yet fully functional but can be shown to be increasing in complexity with each succeeding generation. No such examples exist.” www.epm.org |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Sep-21, 18:49 |
Origins of species? We see every species has its earliest fossil examples. Some we know must be older and simply absent preserved representatives. All these are arranged across time in patterns highly evocative of evolutionary trends. Marine fossils appear first, followed by fish. Terrestrial plants and insects invade the land, eventually followed by amphibious lungfish, of which tiktaalik is a beautiful transition specimen. Why would a creator god make transition amphibians at all? None have existed in the past three hundred million years or so. And why would a creator god intending humans regard themselves as entirely unique manufacture fossils of more ancient hominid species, or make monkeys at all? Look, here are animals looking a lot like us! This isn't just ammunition for evolutionists, it is a line of nuclear missile silos. In contrast, creationists are armed with paper straws and dried peas, and protected by moth eaten loin cloths. Why does god hate creationists so passionately?>> First, are you suggesting that the scientific method, which includes observation, prediction, experimentation and conclusion, can be applied to the theory of evolution? The only prediction I’m aware of involving the theory of evolution is that the fossil record would contain “truly enormous” (to quote Darwin) numbers of transitional fossils, which it doesn’t. Not even close. What scientists actually do when it comes to the theory of evolution is shoehorn discoveries and existing facts into the theory, no matter how ridiculous their explanations have to be. As for your answer, let me split it up: <<Origins of species? We see every species has its earliest fossil examples. Some we know must be older and simply absent preserved representatives. All these are arranged across time in patterns highly evocative of evolutionary trends.>> Do you have a source for this claim? Because my understanding is the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution - and not just in terms of a lack of transitional fossils. Since you’re making the claim that fossils “are arranged across time in patterns highly evocative of evolutionary trends,” I think you oughta provide a source for that. Ever hear of the Cambrian explosion? Is that an example of fossils being “arranged across time in patterns highly evocative of evolutionary trends?” <<Marine fossils appear first, followed by fish. Terrestrial plants and insects invade the land, eventually followed by amphibious lungfish,>> What do you make of this? “As it turns out, 95% of all fossils are shallow marine invertebrates, mostly shellfish. For instance, clams are found in the bottom layer, the top layer, and every layer in between. There are many different varieties of clams, but clams are in every layer and are still alive today. There is no evolution, just clams! The same could be said for corals, jellyfish, and many others. The fossil record documents primarily marine organisms buried in marine sediments, which (as discussed elsewhere) were catastrophically deposited. Of the 5% remaining fossils, 95% of them are algae and plant fossils (4.75% of the total). In that left over 5% of the 5%, insects and all other invertebrates make up 95% (0.2375 % of the total). ** All of the vertebrate fossils considered together, (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals), comprise only 0.0125% of the entire fossil record, and only 1% of these, or .000125% of the total, consist of more than a single bone! Almost all of them come from the Ice Age. Surely, the vertebrate fossil record is far from complete. Where we have a good record, no evolution can be seen. For the very scanty vertebrate record, an evolutionary story can be told, but the facts do not support it, and certainly do not prove it.” www.icr.org <<of which tiktaalik is a beautiful transition specimen>> “Evolutionists celebrated in 1996 the discovery of what they considered to be a clear transitional form between fish fins and land legs in the features of an extinct lobe-finned fish later dubbed Tiktaalik. Creation scientists and some evolutionists remained skeptical of this interpretation of the fossilized creature—to the contempt of mainstream paleontologists. Those who doubted Tiktaalik’s ‘missing link’ status, however, have been proved right. Recently, a study in the technical journal Nature examined evidence that tetrapods were walking on open ground ‘397 million years ago’ in what is now Poland. But this date is 18 million years earlier than expected, based on the long-held Darwinian view. This evidence, like many others before it, ‘pushes back evolution.’ The Nature article stated, ‘[The tracks] force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish-tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record.’ The evolutionary story goes that lobe-finned fishes clumsily crawled out of water and onto land millions of years ago. Some of these animals subsequently evolved into Tiktaalik-like creatures, with better working legs. But after Cambridge paleontologist Jennifer Clack reviewed the timing of these Polish tracks, she told UK newspaper The Guardian, ‘It blows the whole story out of the water, so to speak.’ Whatever made the tracks in Poland does not look transitional, because they ‘were walking”’with ‘stout legs.’ How could fully-formed land walkers have evolved from lobe-finned fish if they were walking around in a time before the fishes’ ancestors were alive? According to the creation science model, these fossil tracks were formed along with most fossils during the single year of Noah’s Flood. Thus, although one would expect to find an ecological grade from marine to terrestrial life appearing vertically through sedimentary rocks (since marine animals would naturally have been buried first), one would not expect evolutionary relationships to be borne out in fossils. And indeed they are not. Tiktaalik needs to be removed from textbooks and museum displays where it is currently positioned as a creature with key transitional features. The evolutionary story of how fish sprouted limbs just went back to square one. The slate is blank, and it can either be filled in with a new speculative story about how sea life moved onto land—or with a new paradigm altogether.” www.icr.org <<Why would a creator god make transition amphibians at all?>> Who said He did? <<None have existed in the past three hundred million years or so.>> Ever hear of species going extinct? <<And why would a creator god intending humans regard themselves as entirely unique manufacture fossils of more ancient hominid species,>> The “more ancient hominid species” were human. Do you have an example of one that wasn’t? <<or make monkeys at all?>> Something’s gotta eat all those bananas! |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Sep-21, 19:09 |
“Darwin defended his theory by citing the imperfection of the geological record. In particular, he argued that Precambrian fossils had been destroyed by heat, pressure, and erosion. Some of Darwin’s modern followers have likewise argued that Precambrian fossils existed but were later destroyed, or that Precambrian organisms were too small or too soft to have fossilized in the first place. Since 1859, however, paleontologists have discovered many Precambrian fossils, many of them microscopic or soft-bodied. As American paleobiologist William Schopf wrote in 1994, ‘The long-held notion that Precambrian organisms must have been too small or too delicate to have been preserved in geological materials… [is] now recognized as incorrect.’ If anything, the abrupt appearance of the major animal phyla about 540 million years ago — which modern biologists call ‘the Cambrian explosion’ or ‘biology’s Big Bang’ — is better documented now than in Darwin’s time. According to Berkeley paleontologist James Valentine and his colleagues, the ‘explosion is real, it is too big to be masked by flaws in the fossil record.’ Indeed, as more fossils are discovered it becomes clear that the Cambrian explosion was ‘even more abrupt and extensive than previously envisioned.’ ” www.discovery.org |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 05-Sep-21, 00:53 |
wrote>> I thought you were supposed to be ignoring me. You just can’t quit me! Do you get this agitated and defensive when someone criticizes general relativity or the law of gravitation? I bet you don’t because those aren’t your religion. <<<I’ve asked evolutionists on here several times for the exact number of transitional fossils that exist, their names, where they were found and when they were found. I never get an answer.>>> <<The reason is that you fail to read the answers!>> Not true. No one on here has ever stated the exact number of transitional fossils that exist, nor (obviously) have they identified where and when each of those was found. <<We have numerous times replied on the points of the so-called macroevolution (one species changes into another) with concrete examples.>> I’m asking for the exact number of transitional fossils that exist. Do you know it? If so, why not just state it? Is it 5? 10? 50? 100? Since transitional fossils are the only evidence that evolutionists can offer for macroevolution, one would think they’d know the exact number that exist. <<We have numerous times addressed the 'mystery' of the Cambrian 'explosion' and the most recent information on its possible causes.>> You addressed it once and I have yet to see a causal relationship between higher oxygen levels and an accelerated pace of evolution. In fact, one of the scientists quoted in that article disputed that higher oxygen levels existed at the time of the Cambrian explosion. And why are you putting ‘explosion’ in quotes. It’s been called the Cambrian explosion for decades. Are you now denying that?! Are you claiming the Cambrian explosion was/is not an extraordinary event? Where are all the Precambrian fossils? Even if higher oxygen levels caused the Cambrian explosion, does that explain the lack of Precambrian fossils? <<We have several times explained why you were wrong when claiming that evolution theory is incompatible with the 2nd Law.>> I asked for the thread and date where you posted that explanation and you declined to provide it. <<You have neglected and/or ignored all that and continue to do so bu just repeating the same old mantras over and over like a broken record.>> I read LS’ attempted refutations of Randy Alcorn’s 10 major flaws with the theory of evolution and refuted LS’ attempted refutations. Your claim that I just repeat mantras and ignore responses to objections to the theory of evolution is a lie. But because you’re an atheist and a believer in Darwin’s silly nonsense, I’m not surprised you have such little regard for the truth. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 05-Sep-21, 08:14 |
<< Stal He a narcissistic petty ignorant little man with a chip on his shoulder tge suze of Saturn. Ignore him. That’s what I’ve determined to do.>> Then, less than an hour later… <<Stal Fanatic, bigot, lunatic, arrogant and ignorant. All fit. I’ve determined not to read his club anymore.>> Then, less than an hour later… <<Stal Classic One thing about Andrew. He speaks ‘his’ truth. Sadly, he’s delusional>> Then, about 90 minutes later… <<Anyway Let him scream into the void. His stupidity and morally bankrupt and perverted views will fade like a bad case of dysentery. Just wipe thoroughly and turn on the fan to remove the last vestiges of the stink.>> Now, today, this same fellow wrote these comments in FIAT FLUX III’s “Evolution Theory” thread, which is a complete bust as far as its original purpose and is now just a second attack thread on me and my club: <<Stal As expected, the pigeon shat on the board, knocked over the pieces and is now claiming victory. 🙄>> <<Stal Ignore him and his ludicrous dogma. What’s the point? He’ll never admit he’s wrong because he can’t. And he’s preaching bullshyte to himself 😉 Let him.>> <>Stal You are the voice of reason, which is why you have said support. You can see by Andrew’s club exactly how much support he has garnered. Even the other Christians won’t join him. He’s just that whack! Or, possibly the only one whose dogma pleases his jealous vindictive petty deity.>> I love how he tells “stal” to ignore me, something he’s obviously incapable of doing! This is the type of guy, when a gal breaks up with him, he sends her 500 texts a day 😂 |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 05-Sep-21, 08:51 |
<<<I thought you were supposed to be ignoring me. You just can’t quit me!>>> <<Flux is the one who has me on 'ignore'. I don't.>> You took me off ignore? Please reconsider and put me back on. <<He is obviously afraid of direct personal contact.>> Yes, that’s obvious from all the times I reply to you and your cohorts. I put you on ignore ‘cause I was tired of receiving your nasty PMs. And no, I didn’t save them. I get rid of trash at the earliest opportunity. <<People on their self-made thrones often are.>> What throne? I formed a chess club to post about the Holy Bible and criticize Darwin’s ridiculous nonsense. You think that’s a throne? <<Such thrones are slippery.>> How so? <<I certainly can quit, but I have been brought up to be polite and reply to other people's comments, especially when they are directed at me.>> I didn’t direct any comments at you, at least not recently, in the “Why Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is Garbage” thread. I directed comments at you way back when you were discussing substance. <<I hyphenated Cambrian 'explosion' because I thought you earlier criticised this name as something invented by garbage evolutionists.>> What?! That sentence makes no sense! And evolutionists aren’t garbage - the theory they believe is garbage. You understand the difference between a person and theory, right? Or has the theory of evolution become so much a part of your being, so much a part of who you are, that you equate criticism of it as criticism of you? You don’t need to answer that question. We both know the answer. <<Yet, it is just a descriptive name of quite a unique phase of evolution.>> I would say it’s a name that stands in direct contradiction to the theory of evolution. Why didn’t you respond to my question about where the Precambrian fossils are? <<I am not going to count the number of 'missing links' for your pleasure.>> Evolutionists don’t know the number off the top of their heads? One would think they would, given transitional fossils are really the only evidence they have that macroevolution took place. <<We have given several examples of those in Fiat Lux.>> Several?! I cited challenges to the classification of those, but leaving that aside, Darwin said the number of transitional fossils should be “truly enormous” if his theory is correct. Why aren’t they? Where are the Precambrian fossils? <<I am also not going to dig out your statement that the 2nd Law contradicts evolution theory - I just won't waste my time.>> You don’t remember the thread you posted that in? Just give me the title of the thread. I’ll look through it. <<And....it would of course be dead easy for you to NOW repeat that statement - unless you have changed your mind, of course.>> How can I change my mind when you haven’t told me where your explanation is? <<And in THAT case, please repeat after me: "The 2nd Law is in full agreement with evolution theory". I am waiting in suspense..... >> See statement above. You really seem hung up on this 2nd Law objection, as those that’s the only one to the theory of evolution. It’s one of literally dozens. <<And, finally PLEASE stop repeating the mantra that evolution theory would in any way be a religion to me, because it simply is not.>> I disagree and I think your reaction to criticism of it proves me correct. <<Yes, I am an atheist, but I have a high appreciateion and respect for people with religious faiths. I have explained this at length in these forums, but you have obviously ignored all that, too.>> I think that’s great but don’t understand what that has to do with how you view the theory of evolution. <<On the other hand, I look down at people who make unsubstantiated claims>> All my claims are backed up (i.e. have reasons that I provide.) <<and who dismiss science just because they think it contradicts their belief.>> The theory of evolution is not science. It certainly doesn’t follow the scientific method. And I’ve said numerous times that I don’t believe the theory of evolution because I’m a Christian. I don’t believe it ‘cause there’s no evidence to support macroevolution and plenty of evidence against it. Presumably you remember me saying both those things numerous times, but you continue to claim I don’t believe the theory based on my faith. Misrepresenting what someone has said and believes is a common tactic of trolls and quite rampant over at FIAT FLUX III. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 05-Sep-21, 08:59 |
Your support and the support of other key club members means a lot to me!>> Let me reveal what this statement really means: Zorro Your trolling Coram and the trolling by other key club members means a lot to me! |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 05-Sep-21, 12:54 |
You, Sir, are much too polite. If it was me I would have told him off in Afrikaans a long time ago; we have just the right choice of words. Some of it include many f's, the Afrikaans word for cardboard box, and some delectable other which I can't post here.>> One would think a captain in the South African Police would have better things to do with his time than post silly comments on a chess website. Why don’t you get the rampant violence and murders in your country under control? Or are you a clock puncher? |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 05-Sep-21, 20:30 |
We both know that’s not true. You’ll be making another comment to me before the sun sets. <<He has 'not found' the statement he quoted about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which - according to the quote - makes evolutiont heory impossible.>> That’s not what I said and not what I was looking for. I was looking for *your* explanation about why the 2nd Law was not a valid objection to the theory of evolution. If memory serves, you posted a link in one of the FIAT FLUX III threads. That’s what I was looking for - *your* post about why the 2nd Law is not a valid objection to the theory of evolution. <<Well, it is quoted in his post on 22nd July 21 at 16:04 in his thread called 'Why Darwins theory....">> Go on, you can say it….Garbage! But like I said, I’m looking for your post, not mine. <>And here is the article that he cited www.irishtimes.com>> Good article but totally irrelevant as far as what I requested you provide. You said that you debunked my claim (more specifically the claim of an author I cited) that the theory of evolution violates the 2nd Law. You said it didn’t and that you debunked that claim. That’s what I’m looking for - your debunking. <<As BC used to say, 'game, set, match'>> Not quite. Remember: When you and I faced off at the chess board (at your request) I won in under five moves. And I had the black pieces! |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 05-Sep-21, 20:39 |
|
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 05-Sep-21, 22:15 |
One of my cheekier comments when Coram mentioned this was that he still resents being told to tidy up his room when he was young. He didn't get it!>> I got it. That comment was hardly difficult to comprehend. <<That showed how much he knew what he was talking about.>> You also claimed that someone setting up pieces on a chessboard on their correct squares proved that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics could be violated, apparently not understanding the difference between order arising from disorder through the actions of an intelligent being and order arising from disorder solely through natural means. I mean, good grief. But you’re not alone. Another member in that club said building a house proved the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics could be violated. What are you guys smoking over there? <<The guy is a cut-and-paste parrot.>> I post commentaries that agree with my point of view. Why waste time paraphrasing an article that represents my point of view? So I can pass it off as original thinking? This may come as a shock to you but nearly every position and opinion on the Holy Bible and theory of evolution have already been stated. <<The only original contribution he makes is providing the context for his favourite clichés.>> What clichés? Why are you so nasty, Bob? |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 06-Sep-21, 02:52 |
in the explanation of why the 2nd Law of thermodynamics is actually in full accordance with the theory of evolution, there is one note by myself in the old thread 'We Love the Holy Bible' entitled 'Flux and entropy' on 28 Jul 21 at 04:24. There were others before that, and at least one afterwards posted by lord_shiva.>> <<and the reason is.... -briefly- that whilst the 2nd Law requires overall entropy to always increase (order dissipates), it does not preclude local decreases of entropy (increase in order) as long as there is Gibbs' free energy to 'pay' for it, and as long as the total entropy change (local plus surroundings) does increase. In fact, life itself is an example of such 'local order', but there are numerois other examples.>> <<Well, with respect to the 2nd Law, I have guided him to one of the sources where he cites it to prove evolution theory wrong. Then, I guided him to one of the places where I debunked that once and for all, and to other places where shiva did the same. PLUS, I repeated the 'debunk'! Still he doesn't get it - and I bet you 100 Austraian dollars that he will not accept that he (no, his sources) was wrong about this. Should I win this bet, I will donate that amount to people presently suffering the resultants of the illegal US embargo in Cuba.>> Thanks for finding those posts. They were in a different thread from the one I was looking in. I’m curious if you think the decreasing entropy has to be guided by intelligence. I ask that question because in that thread from July, Bob made these two comments as evidence that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics can be violated: <<I wonder how he ever starts a game of chess. Surely arranging the pieces on the board in the right configuration is a contravention of entropy, having only one chance in approx. 10 to the power 22 of happening by random.>> <<And when shown an example of decreasing entropy that flatly contradicts his pseudo-argument (setting up a chess board), he claims an exception that he won't allow anywhere or anyone else.>> Now obviously Bob’s example of setting up a chessboard (and another of your club member’s more recent example of building a house) are actions guided by intelligent beings; in other words, the decreasing entropy is caused by intelligence and purpose. But the theory of evolution has no such intelligence behind it. It’s just random mutations and natural selection guided by blind chance. So is it your position that decreasing entropy (or increasing order) can result from an unguided process based purely on randomness and chance? I think that’s an important question because obviously intelligent beings can increase order in a world of decreasing order and decay. But can increased order happen with zero intelligence behind it? |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 07-Sep-21, 21:21 |
Sounds like a premature declaration of victory to me. Aren’t you interested in answering the question I posed in the post above this one? It’s directly relevant to our conversation about the 2nd Law and directly pertinent to your claim about the theory of evolution and 2nd Law. But if you’re more interested in “winning” an argument than having a discussion, I can see why you’d exit the discussion so quickly. Here’s the question again: I’m curious if you think the decreasing entropy has to be guided by intelligence. I ask that question because in that thread from July, Bob made these two comments as evidence that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics can be violated: <<I wonder how he ever starts a game of chess. Surely arranging the pieces on the board in the right configuration is a contravention of entropy, having only one chance in approx. 10 to the power 22 of happening by random.>> <<And when shown an example of decreasing entropy that flatly contradicts his pseudo-argument (setting up a chess board), he claims an exception that he won't allow anywhere or anyone else.>> Now obviously Bob’s example of setting up a chessboard (and another of your club member’s more recent example of building a house) are actions guided by intelligent beings; in other words, the decreasing entropy is caused by intelligence and purpose. But the theory of evolution has no such intelligence behind it. It’s just random mutations and natural selection guided by blind chance. So is it your position that decreasing entropy (or increasing order) can result from an unguided process based purely on randomness and chance? I think that’s an important question because obviously intelligent beings can increase order in a world of decreasing order and decay. But can increased order happen with zero intelligence behind it? |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 07-Sep-21, 21:55 |
I’m actually implying the opposite. Intelligent beings can violate the 2nd Law 24/7 by building houses, setting up chessboards, building skyscrapers, putting together jigsaw puzzles, etc. But can order arise from disorder with no intelligence behind it? In other words, can the theory of evolution, which is *not* guided by intelligence, create order out of disorder in violation of the 2nd Law? That’s the question. <<But he forgets to acknowledge the FACT that he (or rather what he cited) was WRONG. Until he admits that, I won't re-enter any discussion with him.>> Whatever 🙄 |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 07-Sep-21, 23:26 |
Golly, Look!! The larger gravel particles are deposited on the bottom, the medium grains in the middle, and the finer particles on top! There must be some Intelligent Designer involved!>> Who is placing the well-graded mix of fine gravel, soil, sand and clay into a tall, thin jar? An intelligent being, right? <<A slightly different version involves a mixture of sand and wheat grains. The sand sinks to the bottom, the wheat grains float to the top.>> And who’s putting the sand and wheat grains into the tall, thin jar? <<Intelligent Design defying the Second Law by separating what was originally randomly mixed!!>> What was randomly mixed in your example only became separated because an intelligent being put the random mixture into a tall, thin jar, right? <<Coram is just using the disproof of one theory as an excuse for the next, which requires (and has) its own disproof waiting in line. As Cassius Clay once said of an opponent with good footwork, "He can run, but he can't hide!" Coram is simply running from one excuse to the next in a clockwise direction, hoping nobody notices that that each has already been debunked.>> I’m not running at all. I’m asking questions. Why do you guys see every discussion on here as a “I win, you lose!” proposition. Is your self-esteem so low that you need to “win” an argument on a chess website to feel good about yourself? Aren’t you interested in having a discussion for the purpose of edification? I know teenagers with more maturity than you and the founder of FIAT FLUX III. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 07-Sep-21, 23:35 |
Well, there is nothing paticularly strange (or divine) about the fact that the 2nd Law allows local decrease of entropy. Such spontaneous organisation is known from a huge variety of fields and is by no means restricted to 'life'. It is also logically quite reasonable as such order does not come for free, but is 'payed for' by Gibbs' free energy. This is basic thermodynamics (and chemistry and physics). It is only that creationists have stumbled on the rule that entropy (disorder) must always increase and misunderstood the Law. The point is that Flux is stubbornly refusing to admit that he (his citation) was wrong. It makes no difference to this to suggest that perhaps the 2nd Law is itself 'designed' by a creator. It still follows that Flux was wrong and won't admit it! Of course it is possible to POSTULATE that the 2nd Law (and why not all the laws of physics) are the result of a creator's mind. Be my guest. I have no proof to debunk that, but I did have proof to debunk Flux's earlier claim, which he won't accept because it is he who thinks this is some knd of a competition when it is not.>> You’re still not answering my question - Can order arise out of disorder without intelligence behind it? Because the theory of evolution is not guided by intelligence. But I doubt you ever will answer that question because you seem solely interested in “winning” an argument rather than having a discussion. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 07-Sep-21, 23:39 |
<<Wheeev. He still goes on with his mantra. Creation of order out of disorder is NOT in violation of the 2nd Law! How many times do we need to explain this? I mean he is not an idiot?>> And now we’re into the name calling. Well that didn’t take long. And still the question remains unanswered: Can order arise out of disorder without intelligence behind it? |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 07-Sep-21, 23:47 |
What law does the increasing order proposed by the theory of evolution follow? It seems the theory of evolution is guided by no law and no intelligence. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 08-Sep-21, 01:47 |
He responded to my examples with <<<And regarding Bob’s example, is the order in which the various materials sink governed by another law? I believe so.>>> Now, let's get this straight:- 1. He agrees that my examples at 23:06 are valid.>> No, I don’t agree they’re valid because in your examples an intelligent being is pouring the different materials into a tall, thin jar and adding water, etc. I said that already but you chose to ignore it. <<2. He agrees that they result in an INCREASE in order, in 'violation' of his original interpretation of the second law.>> In your examples, they result in an increase in order because of the actions of an intelligent being. That’s not at all what the 2nd Law is referring to. That’s why your earlier claim from July that setting up a chessboard violates the 2nd Law was so ludicrous. The 2nd Law refers to natural processes unguided by intelligence. <<3. But this doesn't count, because it is governed by 'another law'. (In the first case, hydrodynamic drag; in the second, Archimedes Principle.)>> It doesn’t count in your examples because an intelligent being is acting upon the materials. I brought up the fact that the materials settled in the order in which they settled due to another law to show how ludicrous the theory of evolution is because it proposes increased order from disorder absent intelligence *and* absent another law. <<So he is now postulating that the Second Law of Thermodynamics CAN be broken locally, but only by 'another law'.>> No, you’re leaving out that your examples had an intelligent being acting upon the materials. Of course you know this since I already stated it. <<Well, I can agree with that. In fact, that's exactly what Stal has been trying to tell him since forever.>> Then what law does the theory of evolution follow? I mean your examples with the sediments followed a law and had the actions of an intelligent being. The theory of evolution has no intelligence behind it, and I’m not aware of any law that evolution follows. <<So why can't he just say 'I agree with Stal'?>> Because I don’t agree with him and he hasn’t proven his case. <<There's no shame in abandoning a bad idea for a better one.>> That’s hilarious coming from an evolutionist. Ever hear of intelligent design? Why don’t you abandon Darwin’s ridiculous nonsense for that far better idea? Then maybe you’ll eventually realize Genesis is correct! |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 08-Sep-21, 03:20 |
<<< I’m not aware of any law that evolution follows.>>> <<He admits that he is not aware of any biochemistry nor Game Theory (i.e., survival of the fittest).>> This’ll probably be my last post in response to something you write, Bob, ‘cause you’re just too obnoxious to deal with, but here’s how Wikipedia describes “survival of the fittest:” “ ‘Survival of the fittest’ is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection.” A phrase is not a law, Bob. But leaving that aside, the phrase originated with the theory of evolution - evolution didn’t operate by an already-established law (or phrase) the way your faulty sediment examples did. But that’s a good gig for faux scientists - make up a theory *and* the phrase it operates by. So the theory gives birth to the phrase and the phrase validates the theory. Have you heard of circular reasoning, Bob? And further into Wiki, the phrase you cited doesn’t carry the clout you seem to think it does when it comes to evolution. Also from Wiki: “Interpreted as a theory of species survival, the theory that the fittest species survive is undermined by evidence that while direct competition is observed between individuals, populations and species, there is little evidence that competition has been the driving force in the evolution of large groups such as, for example, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. Instead, these groups have evolved by expanding into empty ecological niches.” en.m.wikipedia.org <<Yet although he refuses to learn, he continues to try to teach those who understand better than he.>> You’re including yourself in that category? Remember how you said that setting up a chessboard proves the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics can be violated? To say that was a ludicrous example is quite an understatement. <<He might spend a few months meditating on 2Tim 2:24,25 "And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness.">> Sounds like psychological projection to me. I try to have substantive discussions while you seem intent on being obnoxious to impress, and curry favor with, your atheist pals. <<OK, OK, I admit that this is a slight overstatement for rhetorical purposes.>> Who are you talking to, Bob? Are you talking to me or are you talking to some imaginary multitude of readers you’re desperately trying to impress? <<But the point remains. Coram simply doesn't know, and he knows that he doesn't know.>> You and the founder of FIAT FLUX III still haven’t answered the question I initially asked - Can the 2nd Law be violated absent the action of an intelligent being? You guys have engaged in name calling, obnoxious rhetoric, preening before some imaginary multitude of readers that you’re desperately trying to impress, but that basic question of mine remains unanswered. Your self-esteem might improve, Bob, if you learned your true identity in Christ. <<But he keeps battling on, like the Black Knight in Monty Python.>> Sure thing, Bob. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 08-Sep-21, 10:01 |
Such a simple, clear and easy explanation. Why must you complexicate it with science, I just don’t know. Just believe what those sheep herding nomads from 2500 years ago said.>> The level of ignorance in this post is really stunning - all the more so because the person who wrote it has had these points refuted many times. I think he knows what he’s writing is false, but he’s more interested in trolling and “winning” a debate than he is in having a discussion. Let’s take ‘em one by one. <<Don’t forget the possibility of a supreme being no one has ever seen>> No one saw Jesus Christ?! Because Jesus Christ was/is God in the flesh. <<who has mysteriously always existed outside of time and space>> What’s mysterious about eternity and eternal existence? You don’t understand it? You yourself entertain the possibility of an eternal universe. As far as time, I thought scientists believed time was created. If that’s the case, who do you think created it? Something out of nothing yet again? It’s hilarious the extent to which you guys will contort yourself to deny God’s existence. <<suddenly got lonely at some point (why at that particular point, i dunno)>> No, God created man not out of loneliness but because love gives and God is love. In response to God’s love, man turned his back on God and became exceedingly wicked, even to the point of sacrificing children to false gods. <<and decided to just snap his divine fingers and create everything.>> He didn’t snap His fingers; He spoke everything into existence. That’s what you can do when you’re omnipotent! <<Such a simple, clear and easy explanation.>> Yes! <<Why must you complexicate it with science, I just don’t know.>> The theory of evolution isn’t science. It doesn’t adhere to the scientific method and there’s very little, if any, evidence for macroevolution. The theory of evolution is a religion, the religion of atheists. Mother earth is your god, Charles Darwin is your prophet and On the Origin of Species is your bible. There’s far more evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ than there is for macroevolution, and it takes far more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than it does to believe in God and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. <<Just believe what those sheep herding nomads from 2500 years ago said.>> You’ve been using that “sheep herding nomads” line for years even though you’ve been told numerous times that among the authors of the 40 books of the Bible were a king (David,) the wisest man of his time and perhaps ever (Solomon,) a physician (Luke,) the most educated people of their day (Paul, formerly Saul of Tarsus,) etc. The fact you continue repeating the same false statements - and have been doing that for literally years! - just proves you’re not interested in having a discussion. You’re only interested in trolling - like so many in FIAT FLUX III. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 08-Sep-21, 10:16 |
Game theory was developed many decades *after* Charles Darwin published his silly nonsense so citing game theory as a “law” that the theory of evolution follows is absurd. That’s like someone driving their car 80 mph down a freeway that has no speed limit, the state legislature enacting a law that says the speed limit is 80 mph on the freeway, and someone saying, “That motorist obeyed the law!” One member of FIAT FLUX III (who curiously is not a moderator; I say curiously because he’s virtually the only one posting substance in that “high level” club which has “carefully selected” moderators) did take a worthwhile stab at my question of whether the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics can be violated without the actions of an intelligent being (he offered as an example running water organizing sediment into difference layers based on the sediments’ mass.) That’s a good answer and worthy of a response later today after some thought. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 08-Sep-21, 14:28 |
Very early in the forming years of an infant and toddler, the brain knows nothing much. It is a blank slate, and it can learn [and unlearn] many things very quickly.>> Ok. <<As the young child grows, some things become so rigidly set in the brain that by the time the person is 18, the brain finds it difficult to learn [in] news ways.>> Do you have a citation for this, or is this just your opinion? <<Read that with and without the word 'in'. The neurons in the brain has been almost hard wired to think, act and react in a certain way. Recent studies between the brain functions of Catholic nuns during prayers and extremist Muslim people during prayer show that different parts of the brain are activated and used- the brain has been taught to think in two different ways and the working of the neurons are set rock hard in stone.>> Can you cite or provide a link to this study? I’d like to read about it. <<It is possible to change the neuron plasticity with much effort and hard work, but one has to have the will to unlearn old ways of thinking and learn new ways of thinking.>> Again, a citation would be good. <<This is way I always object when somebody says that "That is a Christian child".>> I object too. Unlike Islam and Judaism, a child isn’t born into the Christian faith. A Christian is one who chooses to accept and believe in Jesus Christ and His Resurrection. No one can do that for him. Going to church, singing in a choir, doing volunteer work, reading the Holy Bible, etc. doesn’t make someone a Christian. It’s all based on John 3:16 and Romans 10:9. <<There is no such thing. It is accurate to say "That is a child of Christian parents",>> I agree. <<and I also explain that the child is being drilled and indoctrinated to become a Christian by religious rites (sacraments) holidays, being read the Bible daily, being forced to go to church*, and the example of its parents, other family and friends and the society it is exposed to and grows up in.>> That may be true for a child, though I think “teaching” the child about God and Christianity, rather than saying the child is being “indoctrinated,” is a more accurate and less bigoted way to say what you’re expressing, but when one is an adult, one can evaluate the evidence for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection and come to his or her own conclusion. <<Now I extrapolate that to the conversation we have seen unfolding above. The strict and narrow point of view which cannot be changed, discussed, considered, amended or otherwise influenced in any way speaks to me of a brain that has been programmed since birth to believe only one thing, and that thing only.>> It sounds like you’re speaking of evolutionists! If you bothered to ask or read the thread in here called “Why I Love the KJV,” you’d learn that I became a Christian as an adult in my 40s and not as a child. I did attend church as a child and did sing in the choir and for that, I’ll be eternally grateful to my parents because it exposed me to God at a young age and I have believed in God for as long as I can remember. But I didn’t become a Christian until my 40s. Many people (like myself) became Christians after examining and investigating the evidence for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection and determining it was very convincing. Just like these guys, who are experts in evaluating evidence: From allaboutthejourney.org: Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was one of the founders of Harvard Law School. He authored the authoritative three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842), which is still considered "the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure." Greenleaf literally wrote the rules of evidence for the U.S. legal system. He was certainly a man who knew how to weigh the facts. He was an atheist until he accepted a challenge by his students to investigate the case for Christ's resurrection. After personally collecting and examining the evidence based on rules of evidence that he helped establish, Greenleaf became a Christian and wrote the classic, Testimony of the Evangelists. Let [the Gospel's] testimony be sifted, as it were given in a court of justice on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth. Sir Lionel Luckhoo (1914-1997) is considered one of the greatest lawyers in British history. He's recorded in the Guinness Book of World Records as the "World's Most Successful Advocate," with 245 consecutive murder acquittals. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II -- twice. Luckhoo declared: I humbly add I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt. Lee Strobel was a Yale-educated, award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. As an atheist, he decided to compile a legal case against Jesus Christ and prove him to be a fraud by the weight of the evidence. As Legal Editor of the Tribune, Strobel's area of expertise was courtroom analysis. To make his case against Christ, Strobel cross-examined a number of Christian authorities, recognized experts in their own fields of study (including PhD's from such prestigious academic centers as Cambridge, Princeton, and Brandeis). He conducted his examination with no religious bias, other than his predisposition to atheism. Remarkably, after compiling and critically examining the evidence for himself, Strobel became a Christian. Stunned by his findings, he organized the evidence into a book entitled, The Case for Christ, which won the Gold Medallion Book Award for excellence. Strobel asks one thing of each reader - remain unbiased in your examination of the evidence. In the end, judge the evidence for yourself, acting as the lone juror in the case for Christ...” www.allaboutthejourney.org <<Without deviation, without options, without the ability for independent thinking,>> Huh? Christianity has many areas in which Christians disagree, such as salvation by faith alone vs. salvation by faith plus works; eternal salvation vs. conditional salvation; predestination in salvation vs. free will in salvation; when and if the Rapture will take place, etc. All of that involves deviation, options and the ability for independent thinking. <<critical analysis and with strict prohibition to entertain any other thought than strict and narrow dogma.>> Not to be rude, but you have no idea what you’re talking about. Not only is there disagreement and debate about doctrine in Christianity, there’s disagreement and debate about how to interpret verses, passages and even books in the Holy Bible. Your “analysis” of Christianity is much more appropriate for evolutionists. <<Nobody will be able to convince this person even to consider anything else than his own narrow beliefs and dogma, or tho even remotely consider that there may be other options.>> Try to invalidate or discredit the evidence for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection. The fact you can’t (and likely don’t even know such evidence exists) shows how ignorant you are about Christianity, <<He has no motivation to change, nor will he ever have it. His religion is all he needs and he will cling to that all he has got.>> Again, this statement is much more appropriate for the evolutionist who clings to his pagan religion of earth being God, Charles Darwin being a prophet and On the Origin of Species being a bible than it is for Christianity. I have presented reams of evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and literally none has been disputed. And I’ve presented reams of evidence against the theory of evolution, very little of which has been disputed (at least not credibly.) <<It took me 8 years of extremely hard work to break my own chains growing up 18 years in a religious Christian house, with a very religious society and community around me.>> So you left Christianity based on what? <<I had to work at it. Very hard, with much willpower.>> So you left Christianity based on what? What were your reasons for determining Christianity was false? Sadly, I doubt you’ll explain it. <<* I have never seen a child who WANTS to go to church for any other reason than self-interest: to see friends, for a special occasion, or some such reason.>> That’s probably true. <<Until a child has been fully indoctrinated it will try to avoid church, find it boring, or like me, frightening, even more so than nightmares.>> What were you frightened of? <<Nightmares usually caused by church in the first place.>> How so? How did church cause you to have nightmares? <<Yep, the monster in the closet was always Lucifer who wanted to come grab me for some unholy brimstone barbecue.>> You didn’t go to a very good church if that’s what you were taught. God = Love God > Lucifer |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 08-Sep-21, 15:02 |
I can say (and have said numerous times) that I disagree with the theory of evolution based on the lack of evidence for macroevolution, I can post numerous articles that demonstrate this lack of evidence for macroevolution, I can post numerous quotes from highly-credentialed scientists stating the theory of evolution is false, I can literally list hundreds of highly-credentialed scientists who are skeptical that Darwin’s theory can account for the complexity of life, and Gk evolutionists will still claim disbelief in the theory of evolution is based on religion. It’s incredible how dishonest or how intellectually blind evolutionists are. They’re fully invested in their pagan religion and anyone who opposes it must be attacked, lied about, insulted and demeaned. All to protect mother earth. Why one evolutionist on here longs for the disappearance of humanity so the sanctity of mother earth can be restored. I don’t say this about many people, but some evolutionists are legitimately wacko 🤪 |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
