Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

[justatruthseeker]

How do you know my reason for accepting an interpretation at odds with YEC? Must I accept YEC to be saved? Why are YEC so vicious?

Except Jesus said man was from the beginning of creation. So either creation happened billions of years ago and man existed then or Jesus was confused. In which case why believe anything else he had to say.

 

[Derf]

No we wouldn’t have change…. Neither the Husky nor the Mastiff would have changed over time into the Chinook… As we know in reality the Husky stayed a Husky, the Mastiff stayed a Mastiff.

And every evolutionist would agree with you--that for every fossil, those animals that were left as fossils never changed into anything else before they died. If you want to argue against evolution, you should do it with something they DON'T agree with.

Although if you wish to consider the falsity of evolution over time by mutation and contemplate the fossil record is simply the normal mating of hybrids…. We can discuss that certainly. Then one might conclude that say, for example, triceratops and their relations are like dogs, merely different breeds….
View attachment 4707

Absolutely!

I’ll pretend your playing dumb about the fossil that are rocks changing as just avoidance and not actually being dumb….

I'm just saying that your words are not coming across like you think they are, and you should be more careful with your words, so you don't end up arguing an indefensible point.

 

[marke]

First found written in the margins and later put into some Bibles.

God had 1 John 5 put in the Bible, not the devil or deluded men.

 

[marke]

You might want to define what you mean by "creature". If a kind of animal rather than a specific being (like your pet dog), then you might be mistaken about these "changes". Even a specific animal changes over time: grows bigger, gains or loses hair, gains or loses teeth, gets old and wrinkled, etc. A baby in the womb goes through numerous changes in just 9 months. I'm with you in regard to evolution's false claims, but let's be careful about our own claims.

No ape ever evolved into a human, not even black monkeys in Africa.

 

[marke]

Show me one example of change that is not "over time."

6 million years is not enough time for chimps to split into two distinct species of modern chimps and humans. Darwin was a fool. He saw apes in a tree and said to himself, "So the Bible is wrong after all." Maybe if he had known then what modern scientists know now he would have chopped his stupid theological tree of life down himself.

 

[Derf]

No ape ever evolved into a human, not even black monkeys in Africa.

No evolutionist ever said they did. That's my point. Arguing against evolution by agreeing with evolutionists seems rather futile.

 

[marke]

No evolutionist ever said they did. That's my point. Arguing against evolution by agreeing with evolutionists seems rather futile.

Deluded secularists claim the human race first evolved from simians in Africa. Modern deluded Darwinists still cling to the Darwinian idea that humans are savage beasts still related to apes in Africa. God says humans are made in the image of God, not from savage beasts through Darwinian evolutionary mythology nonsense.

 

[Derf]

Deluded secularists claim the human race first evolved from simians in Africa. Modern deluded Darwinists still cling to the Darwinian idea that humans are savage beasts still related to apes in Africa. God says humans are made in the image of God, not from savage beasts through Darwinian evolutionary mythology nonsense.

I agree wholeheartedly with your post here, but no evolutionist would say that an ape evolved into a man. Words are important, and we should use them accurately, because evolutionists don't always.

 

[marke]

I agree wholeheartedly with your post here, but no evolutionist would say that an ape evolved into a man. Words are important, and we should use them accurately, because evolutionists don't always.

I refuse to let evolutionists get away with their false teachings over the years. Darwin saw similarities between humans and simians and decided God did not create Adam and Eve. More rebels against God jumped on the stupid evolution bandwagon and declared that humans first evolved from animals in Africa. We are talking about the evolutionist belief that the first humans that began to emerge from simians in Africa were, to use Darwin's terminology, black savages. Early American evolutionists displayed blacks from Africa in cages with monkeys to showcase their belief in evolution.

 

[7djengo7]

I’m still waiting for your one example lol f any change in any creature in the fossil record…

@Stripe is, just in case you don't know yet, a YEC/anti-Darwinist. I don't think he's trolling you. Rather, it seems he's just prompting you to try to think a bit more carefully and acutely about how you are using certain words. Darwinism (or as I sometimes call it, Darwinistspeak) is nothing if not an irrational language game that all Darwinists (or Darwin cheerleaders) want you to reflexively take seriously and play along with. And so, being more and more aware of the ways in which they try to play their word games against us (and by which they dupe their dupes to their cause, generating amplificatory parrots of Darwinistspeak) can only help us to hone our tactics and abilities in our confrontation of the insane error that is Darwinism.

And, when you stop to think about it, the best way, perhaps, to equip yourself to develop such an awareness would seem to be to make at least as much of a priority about subjecting your own customary ways of using words to critical questioning as rigorously as you can. In so doing, at the very least one will likely benefit by gradually learning how he/she can cut cumbersome fat from his/her own discourse, such as superfluous redundancies like "change over time" and "superfluous redundancies".

 

[7djengo7]

I agree wholeheartedly with your post here, but no evolutionist would say that an ape evolved into a man. Words are important, and we should use them accurately, because evolutionists don't always.

Perhaps Darwinists can't be found saying "an ape evolved into a man". But, loony as it is, you can find Darwinists referring to man as "ape":

And, you can find them saying:

The bottom line is that all humans are apes

 

[justatruthseeker]

And every evolutionist would agree with you--that for every fossil, those animals that were left as fossils never changed into anything else before they died. If you want to argue against evolution, you should do it with something they DON'T agree with.

I know. Instead they insert imaginary missing common ancestors every place they need evolution to have occurred….

Absolutely!

I'm just saying that your words are not coming across like you think they are, and you should be more careful with your words, so you don't end up arguing an indefensible point.

My words were just fine. Perhaps it’s only you that chose not to read them as they were written because there’s not one shred of evidence of any change in the fossil record….

 

[justatruthseeker]

God had 1 John 5 put in the Bible, not the devil or deluded men.

Yes after realizing He forgot to include it originally He must have caught His mistake post edit…..

 

[justatruthseeker]

No ape ever evolved into a human, not even black monkeys in Africa.

That’s apelike creature not ape. Evolutionists get their panties in bunches over that distinction….

But either way agreed…

 

[justatruthseeker]

@Stripe is, just in case you don't know yet, a YEC/anti-Darwinist. I don't think he's trolling you. Rather, it seems he's just prompting you to try to think a bit more carefully and acutely about how you are using certain words. Darwinism (or as I sometimes call it, Darwinistspeak) is nothing if not an irrational language game that all Darwinists (or Darwin cheerleaders) want you to reflexively take seriously and play along with. And so, being more and more aware of the ways in which they try to play their word games against us (and by which they dupe their dupes to their cause, generating amplificatory parrots of Darwinistspeak) can only help us to hone our tactics and abilities in our confrontation of the insane error that is Darwinism.

And, when you stop to think about it, the best way, perhaps, to equip yourself to develop such an awareness would seem to be to make at least as much of a priority about subjecting your own customary ways of using words to critical questioning as rigorously as you can. In so doing, at the very least one will likely benefit by gradually learning how he/she can cut cumbersome fat from his/her own discourse, such as superfluous redundancies like "change over time" and "superfluous redundancies".

Exactly why I simply ask for any examples of any creature in the fossil record showing evolutionary changes. None exist.

Now I’m not saying they won’t show two distinct creatures and claim a magical missing common ancestor that can’t be found didn’t evolve into both, but then again imagination isn’t evidence.

And I stand by my choice…. Show any creature in the fossil record who’s fossils show evidence of change over time. I’ll be waiting till the end of the universe while people instead distract with useless banter about semantics, while no evidence is forthcoming…. That is exactly their game…. To get you arguing about semantics while avoiding the fact that no evidence of change exists…. A game I’m not playing…

So I await this evidence of “change over time” for any creature in the fossil record…

 

[justatruthseeker]

Perhaps Darwinists can't be found saying "an ape evolved into a man". But, loony as it is, you can find Darwinists referring to man as "ape":

And, you can find them saying:

Yes they are contradictory that way. Keeps them from having to actually stick with any one claim…

 

[Derf]

I know. Instead they insert imaginary missing common ancestors every place they need evolution to have occurred….

My words were just fine. Perhaps it’s only you that chose not to read them as they were written because there’s not one shred of evidence of any change in the fossil record….

Apparently you're not really "just a truth seeker".

 

[7djengo7]

To get you arguing about semantics

Their game is to not address, and to try to shift attention away from their failure to address criticism of the irrational ways in which they are using their words. And, lo and behold! What's one way they love to try to silence said inconvenient criticism? Why, they love to reflexively throw at it the word, "semantics," hoping that so doing will somehow have a belittling effect against their critics. Over the years I've asked numerous people, in various contexts--people who have called my annoying questioning of certain ways in which they have chosen to use certain words they have chosen to use, and who then have tried to lash out at me for it by calling my questioning, "obsession with semantics," and such--I've asked them exactly why they imagine that the word, "semantics," has some sort of use as a pejorative. And, you know what? Not a one of them has ever even let on like they saw this question; much less has any of them ever tried to answer it.

Semantics, really, is just a concern with questions of meaning. Nothing wrong with that. When you say something, and someone asks you critical questions so as to try to find out just what (if anything) you mean by it, and you find yourself cornered into reacting to their questions by saying something like, "You're just obsessed with semantics!" you might want to pause to give some honest consideration as to which of you has the upper hand in the situation: you or your critic/questioner.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes after realizing He forgot to include it originally He must have caught His mistake post edit…..

There are plenty of other verses in the Bible to show what is written in that passage, enough that even if you exclude it, it's still more than enough to make a case.

But that's a topic for a different thread.

 

[marke]

Yes after realizing He forgot to include it originally He must have caught His mistake post edit…..

We don't still have copies of the Bible older than the earliest record of the wording of 1 John 5:7. Besides, there were different versions of the Bible in the earliest centuries of the Church Age with some of the oldest versions or copies showing signs of some of the worst corruptions.