Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

Quote from murray t turtle:

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

Mr Betapeg;
Actually , you may have rightly observed the pattern.
Some Christians do take animal nicknames, or some may compare humans to a lion or bear.LOL..Some fine Hebrews do that too, not that that proves evolution either.

Actually a good question, if God{Lord Jesus Christ is real}.
why do Christian church members get divorced about the same percentage as others??.[1] Many church members are not Christians, even though they may go to a good Bible Christian Church [2] The Christians that get divorced , that pray & read the Bible together, who get divorced ,is about 1 in 700.

Check it out;
Bill Wiese 23 Minutes in Hell[Old testament scriptures also]

Actually can find {with scientific study} the english words ''fire and brimstone''
in the old testament .{And any can find fire & brimstone in Hebrew Dictionary of the old testament.also}.

God likes more than 1 option also.Its in the news again,Israel ,Canada, US,doing a dig/scientific study, Goliath 's hometown of Gath.
: :cool:

''Am i a dog''?? Goliath of Gath said.LOL:D

David told King Saul;
''Thy servant slew both the lion & the bear and that uncircumcised Philistine shall be as one of them''. Ok, that sounds like evolution, but i dont think David believed in evolution.

Also note here, it was not just a fire & brimstone option,;
it was 1 from 5 smooth stones & sling ........................................Thanks
More...

Hello Murray. If I may ask, what is your point here in one or two sentences?
 
Quote from Trader666:

Less so than your comment or Betapig's that I was responding to.
More...

Were you offended by the "i.e. Pascal's Wager is for the gullible" comment? I can tone it down if you'd like for the sake of keeping this discussion civil.

Betapig!? Lol, that's original ;)
 
Quote from Betapeg:

Clearly, you see my quotes directly conflict with yours. Your assertion that "most if not all scientists accept" a fine-tuned universe is obviously untrue so you might want to back off such a baselessly arrogant statement. The physics clearly postulates the very real possibility of a random, spontaneous universe. What it doesn't postulate is a "fine-tuner". Such a postulation isn't physics. That is theology/philosophy. So when I'm told, "You are living in the 80s... learn some current science" I have to chuckle to myself because I had no idea "most if not all scientists" were all of a sudden believers in intelligent design. Which I don't believe for one second.
More...


1. at least you should be able to line up more scientists than I have shown you -- right?

How about a few recent from scientists which say our universe is a random spontaneous universe.... but not part of the multiverse.

2. your last sentence is pretty funny since I have shown you quotes from scientists saying most scientists now chose between the multiverse idea or evidence of design idea.
 
Quote from stu:

Another disastrous problem with Pascal's Wager for religious believers is, it's every bit as likely that the Christian God gave the gift of rational skepticism, and therefore after providing so many obvious clues, such as being unfalsifiable Itself, It expects the correct understanding to be that there is no God.

The Christian God would have to be an atheist anyway, so it's just as likely any Heaven would be for those like Itself.

This is just one way Pascal's Wager is catastrophic and totally fails it's intended purpose in any context of a Christian God , The Creator Pink Elephant (peace be upon It), Allah, or any other deity.
More...

your conclusion is irrational.
 
Quote from jem:

1. at least you should be able to line up more scientists than I have shown you -- right?
More...

So your standard of truth is how many people believe something? That's a logical fallacy. It really sounds kind of lame when you establish the end condition of a debate as being how many more quotes you or I can post.

How about a few recent from scientists which say our universe is a random spontaneous universe.... but not part of the multiverse.
More...

So you're only response to the substance of the quotes I posted are to...ask for yet more quotes that fit exactly into your pre-defined criteria of acceptance. Sorry, but you're going to have to accept what I have already posted, and answer to that. Which you haven't except to repost and restate what you have already said, and to which the purpose of my posted quotes was to refute your claim that "most if not all scientists" believe in a fine-tuned universe. That's a lie, a deception, or a misrepresentation. Whatever it is, it's not the truth and I think I proved that point.

2. your last sentence is pretty funny since I have shown you quotes from scientists saying most scientists now chose between the multiverse idea or evidence of design idea.
More...

If you seriously think intelligent design is at the fore-front of scientific advances, or that there is even a consensus among the science community that the universe is fine-tuned (and hence implying "fine-tuner"), then you are extremely mistaken. You do realize that teaching intelligent design in science classrooms is illegal in countries with modern secular governments, right? You are making a religious/philosophical statement when implying a fine-tuner. Who is the fine-tuner? Of course it's an unfalsifiable deity.

I can only conclude that you are quote mining (a common creationist tactic) and taking people's quotes out of context. For example, you're use of Stephen Hawking to posit he believes in a designed universe. He only said it "seemed" like the universe was designed which does not mean he believes it so. To which the quotes I posted by him should have put to rest your attempt to use such a brilliant mind as a support to your point of view, which I know for a fact he does not share. Here it is again.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

I can only assume that I can nitpick the other quotes you posted and find some reason why it's out of context or just plain wrong. You're more than welcome to post your best 3. And you're also more than welcome to answer to any of my quotes which state in DETAIL the fact of a randomly changing/generated universe.
 
Quote from Betapeg:

So your standard of truth is how many people believe something? That's a logical fallacy.
More...

I generally agree, but it also happens to be one of ET's atheists biggest arguments.

Or haven't you noticed?
 
Quote from Lucrum:

I generally agree, but it also happens to be one of ET's atheists biggest arguments.

Or haven't you noticed?
More...

The logic goes, just because everyone believes something doesn't necessarily mean it's true. In this case, what the science community accepts as fact on an overwhelming majority basis just happens to be the truth.
 
Quote from Betapeg:
The logic goes, just because everyone believes something doesn't necessarily mean it's true. In this case, what the science community accepts as fact on an overwhelming majority basis just happens to be the truth.
More...
Which translates to: It's OK for YOU to use the argument but it's a logical fallacy for anyone else to use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top