Evolution just doesn't make sense

[robert9712000]

Very well then... Here is proof that the story in genesis 1 can't possibly be true:

There is no sound in a vacuum.

Vacuum? Yes, because according to genesis the sun was created after the earth. So up to that moment there were temperatures close to zero Kelvin, meaning that even hydrogen was liquid. So it was impossible to say "let there be light". Conclusion: the "water" over which the spirit of God is hovering (genesis 1:2) is not really H2O (because that's ice) but liquid oxygene, liquid nitrogen etc.

Here's another one:

The dinosaurs lived less than a day.

According to genesis, the first land animals were created on the sixth day. Man was created by the end of the sixth day. But by that time the dinosaurs were extinct.

And last but not least: I didn't "just chant" things. I made a point. The point is: time after time when science and church collided, the church lost. So why should that be different this time?

you make alot of assumptions.If God was able to create the universe i think hed also be able to establish and change physical laws at his will.He wouldnt be bound by any scientific law if he created it.How do you know dinosaurs were gone by the time man was created,didnt Job talk about great leviathan's that could swallow up a river when it drank.

 

[Scrapmo]

Clear signs of youth. Unflappable self assuredness, painfully under researched opinions and incoherent, inarticulate proofs. You do not possess even an elementary understanding of theology, history or the science of which you speak.

As has been said you are woefully unprepared to even begin this debate. You should be laying the foundation of your knowledge before establishing your rhetoric.You are just not ready yet. Ask questions, read some literature from the best authors that both sides have to offer, then ask more questions. Think, ruminate, meditate, reevaluate everything you have ever thought or believed, do it all again... then ask more questions. Once you have it "all figured out" self reflect, realize that you do not, then read some more literature and ask more questions.

Whether you are right or wrong is irrelevant at this point. The issue is that it is apparent that you have arrived to your conclusions by complete accident. It is a worthwhile and mutually beneficial educational experience to debate with someone who has developed his/her worldviews from years of study, research and self reflection.
It is a monumental waste of time to debate with someone who has not attempted to understand what he believes, why he believes and has put in the hours of study to defend that belief, regardless if he is right or wrong.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Very well then... Here is proof that the story in genesis 1 can't possibly be true: [snip]

*shrug* I am not a Christian - let alone a Biblical literalist - so you will have to argue your "proof" on this Genesis issue with someone else. I will but note that not all Christians are Biblical literalists - so even if your proof bears out, it will have addressed the beliefs of only a particular subset of Christians. (Of course, there are some literalist Christians who might say that non-literalist Christians are not "really" Christians at all - but that is yet another hunt in which I have no dog.)

And last but not least: I didn't "just chant" things. I made a point. The point is: time after time when science and church collided, the church lost. So why should that be different this time?

Your "point" (as you actually made it) was based on commonly-peddled anti-religion propaganda falsehoods (namely, that "Christians believed the Earth is flat" and that "the Church persecuted Galileo solely because of his empirical observations & physical/non-theological theories"), The Church did NOT "lose" on those "points" because those "points" are false (e.g., the Church did NOT "lose" on the "Earth is flat" issue because it never believed that the Earth is flat). Those "points" are outright lies (in the case of the "Flat Earth" issue) or dishonestly grotesque oversimplifications (in the case of the Galileo controversy).

You uncritically regurgitated the anti-religion "dogma" that you have admitted you were taught in school. You did not stop to wonder about it or question it - or try to find out for yourself if any of it was actually true. You just repeated it out of "blind faith" because that is what you have been indoctrinated with by some "authority." This is all very ironic, given that these are the very kinds of things that religionists are so frequently accused of by non-religionists. This is one of my pet peeves with a lot of atheists (those who go out of their way to criticize religion) - many religious types at least openly acknowledge the role that "blind faith" and "acceptance of dogmatic authority" plays in their beliefs.

 

[Fred the musician]

@Scrapmo: Youth??? I'm 56 years old! I know more about this subject than most of you.
Your last sentence is correct: it's no use debating with you. I've been on this subject since I was 12; that's 44 years. I've heard all the nonsense about a 6 day creation before, so I have my reply ready in seconds.

And here's something about the flat earth dogma again...
I found a short story in Dutch on the internet. Here is the translation (might not be perfect English because the translation was made by Google Translate and I may have overlooked an error or two):

A POWERFUL MAN

Once upon a time there was a king who was colorblind ... he could not distinguish red from green. But the problem was, he did not know that himself. One day there was a new law that stated that there was no difference between red and green, so there shouldn't be more than two different words for it. Of course the people ignored it. Red was red and green was green; everyone saw the difference so they refused to pretend there was no red or no green. The king roared with anger when he heard that . So he issued a law: anyone who now claimed that red was not the same as green, was thrown into prison without trial.
Of course that didn't work either. The truth was the truth and the people knew that the king was wrong. Sometimes someone had the courage to tell the king about his mistake, but no one ever heard from them again. In a cell below the royal palace prisoners usually didn't live long. Most died within one month from malnutrition, and of not, some contagious disease did the job. How many people ended up in jail through history... nobody knew. But something like this couldn't last forever, of course.
A doctor succeeded in producing two pensils which were exactly as bright but one was red and the other was green. He could see the difference but the king couldn't. Then the king was challenged to draw as many crisscrossed lines as he could on a piece of paper with the green pencil. After that he was told to use the red pencil, drawing lines representing a clear figure or letter. The doctor saw what the king had drawn and there was the evidence: the king was colorblind.
Needless to say, the law about red and green was abolished.

Many years passed. But then suddenly .... One day little Nick came home after school and said that they had talked about colorblindness at school. Grandpa said that the former king was colorblind. Colorblind??? The boy didn't believe a word of that. Grandpa began to wonder if Nick ever attended history lessons at school ... or would he be so bad at history? Grandpa decided to find it on the internet so that he could show it to his grandson! But search after search resulted in less than nothing. Less than nothing? Yes, because he found no documents indicating that the king had the habit of throwing people in jail when they claimed that red and green were not the same. Instead he found several websites with the topic "how did the red / green myth arise?"
Myth??? Grandpa knew what he knew, and that was not what those websites wanted him to believe! It was clear: the king, powerful as he was, could easily make sure that there was no tangible evidence of the blunder he had ever made. The truth had been carefully erased ...

PS. Did I mention that nowadays more and more websites show the "evidence" that the church has never maintained that the earth was flat?

 

[erowe1]

And here's something about the flat earth dogma again...
I found a short story in Dutch on the internet. Here is the translation (might not be perfect English because the translation was made by Google Translate and I may have overlooked an error or two):

Are you still on that?

If you think it's true, just produce the evidence. It's that simple.

 

[Fred the musician]

Here is the last thing I'll say about this:


HAHAHAHA!!!

There is a series of movies on Youtube called "why people laugh at creationists". Each of these movies show the nonsense that creationists believe in. The last line is invariably: "Why do people laugh at creationists? Only creationists don't understand why."

That's the last thing I'll say about this subject.

 

[Scrapmo]

@Scrapmo: Youth??? I'm 56 years old! I know more about this subject than most of you.
Your last sentence is correct: it's no use debating with you. I've been on this subject since I was 12; that's 44 years. I've heard all the nonsense about a 6 day creation before, so I have my reply ready in seconds.

I highly doubt your 56, by evidence of your tenuous grasp of the subject, logic, written language and lack of maturity. If you are as old as you say then you have lived a long, laughable life of ignorance and poor reasoning, being lead by the nose from the time the first eloquent speaker you happened across told you what opinion you should hold about the universe.

I highly doubt your 44 years of study as you do not understand the basic premises of your own world view, let alone your opposition. My M.S. in biology and B.S. in Chemistry has given me much exposure to this debate. The one constant in that time has been that the ignorant always expose themselves quickly. Youtube videos and copy and pasted short stories, in lieu of an argument, has exposed your intellectual laziness.

When I was teaching, I became adept at recognizing the difference between a student who has "done their homework" and someone who has reworded some more intelligent persons work. I conclude most confidently that you are not 56 and you have not been studying this for 44 years. If so, your definition of study must mean to only seek out materials which demonizes the opposition, whether true or not. You are no different then Republicans or Democrats who only seek and give credence to talking points and spin that favors their "team"

I never advocated anything in this thread except honest research and truth seeking, which in my experience in the years I spent in Academia, very VERY few people actually do, Atheists and creationists alike.

From your responses Im pretty certain your a teeny bopper troll.