Interview with an evolutionist

[swansont]

I don't understand why people believe in this macroevolution, the so-called science that relies on gross amounts of assumptions and pre-bias to make it make sense. Why are you in bondage to this belief system? People are talking about the overwhelming "evidence" to support it, but actually the opposite. Statistically speaking, what's the liklihood of something like amino acids forming from nothing and surviving?

 

Bad models based on not understanding math doesn't constitute evidence. Neither does "evolution is wrong because I don't like/understand it"

 

ID is a not science unless it goes through peer-reviewed? But what if the peers are bent on removing God from the hearts of men? Everyone is convinced one way or the other even before the data comes into the equation.

 

No, the convincing happened over a period of time, starting ~140 years ago. Strange how the data accumulated in the interim fits the model and predictions made have been borne out. Well, not strange if the theory is correct.

 

Jesus is on his way. I pray for the lost souls.

 

Pray for the ones that bear false witness, too. I fear the one who lie for Jesus are the most lost of all.

[Hellbender]

I don't understand why people believe in this macroevolution, the so-called science that relies on gross amounts of assumptions and pre-bias to make it make sense.

Then explain these assumptions and biases to us. No one is going to take you seriously if all you provide is simple statements.

Why are you in bondage to this belief system? People are talking about the overwhelming "evidence" to support it, but actually the opposite.

Again, show us why.

Statistically speaking, what's the liklihood of something like amino acids forming from nothing and surviving?

Low, if you assume that chemical reactions are random, which they are not.

ID is a not science unless it goes through peer-reviewed?

Not on this basis alone, but it certainly helps your credibility (a lot) if your theory can survive peer-review.

But what if the peers are bent on removing God from the hearts of men?

What has this got to do with anything?

Everyone is convinced one way or the other even before the data comes into the equation.

How is this even possible?

Moreover, based on your belief, people are treated unequally which is not what you're designed for.

First, evolution is not a belief. Second, you are referring to antiquated notions that tried to find scientific evidence for racism. Biologists have known for a while that there is no scientific basis for racism.

[JC1]

whats the likelyhood of rolling a 6? its 1/6' date=' ie its more likely than not that a 6 would not be rolled. yet we do not marvel at the statistical unlikelyhood of every 6 that comes up, because [i']every[/i] outcome is unlikely.

 

amino acids forming from 'nothing' and surviving. slim. probability that something would happen. high. any given outcome would have been unlikely, but shit happening was quite likely, and theres no point in going 'hey, why did this unlikely event happen and not one of the other unlikely events?'.

 

out of all of the incredibly unlikely events that could of happened, it was statistically likely that one of them would occour, and it happened to be amino acids forming from 'nothing', which, depending on what you actually mean, might not be as unlikely an event as you actually believe.

 

Do you have an aversion to math, or just what casts

obvious doubt on your belief system? There are more

miracles that macroevolutionists have come up with

to explain their faith, than there are in the Bible.

Cmon now.

 

no we're not. 1/ science is agnostic, not athiest, and 2/ the thing that you have described above is unscientific, and thus scientists would not do it, or we wouldnt be scientists.

 

Science is atheist. If you aint for God, you are

against God. They just want to come up with a term to

water down the fact that they are rejecting the Lord.

 

nope. I suspect you are referring to darwinism, which considered negroes people inferior to caucasions. Darwinism is not the current theory (the current theory is called the modern synthesis), and the modern theory states that negroes and caucasians both evolved from cro-magna homo sapiens and are both of the same species, and definately does not place one race above the other.

 

The current theory? Cmon man, who you fooling.

Your "science" changes every time a macroevolutionist

thinks he found the answer to explain away God. Live

and die by it my man, but it's all shifting sand.

 

In fact, my arguments are based on the end truth. It's

what I've seen throught the years, God already

gave us the breakdown... those needing science

to understand the world will catch-up eventually. seriously.

 

actually, i think religion is far more guilty of treating people unequaly, espescially if theyre a different religion, of no religion, the same religion but do things in a different way, a different colour or, heaven forbid, the lowest-of-the-low, a female.

 

Actually you are misquoting what God has said.

In any event, you base your "science" on something

that cannot be observed nor tested... Is not that

bizarre for a man like yourself who gets all his

answers in the world from science?

[JC1]

Bad models based on not understanding math doesn't constitute evidence. Neither does "evolution is wrong because I don't like/understand it"

 

No' date=' the convincing happened over a period of time, starting ~140 years ago. Strange how the data accumulated in the interim fits the model and predictions made have been borne out. Well, not strange if the theory is correct.

 

Really? But that has been happening for hundreds

of years though. They come up with their idea, get

some credit for saying it, then if it's proven wrong,

the next guy get's the credit but both are still scientists.

 

Yes, it is strange how they came up with someone came

up with a plan to deceive the world and it has become

popular to those who don't want to live their lives

conscious of God. Isn't it more appealing to think

that you can be your own god?

[AzurePhoenix]

Isn't it more appealing to think that you can be your own god?

No, but it is more appealing to actually decide to go look at something to find understanding, rather than depending blindly on a wad of papers that's gone thorugh centuries of editing. I could take a bunch of children, hide them away from the influence of the world, and force-feed them the doctrine of the FSM, and there's a good chance they'd end up as brain-washed as you.

 

And I could one up your book and let my precious little cultists pledge their undying faith to nothing more than a sauce-smeared napkin. And you know what? They'd have just as much credence as you do. Maybe more, due to to the fact that we can prove spaghetti exists in one form or another.

 

Actually you are misquoting what God has said.In any event, you base your "science" on somethingthat cannot be observed nor tested...

Been through this. Seen it. Tested it. Influenced it. Observed a whole lot of it. Evolution is more real and observable than gravity (of which we can only see the resulting affects, IOW, "falling") what we don't know for certain are the exact processes that drive it.

 

Science is atheist. If you aint for God, you areagainst God. They just want to come up with a term to water down the fact that they are rejecting the Lord.

Only the Sith deal in absolutes , and we all know what eventually happened to them.

 

Flexibility is the key to growth. Bend a little, overcome your prejucide for things that are different from you. Believe what you want, and accept other for what they percieve to be a truth. If you want respect, offer respect, if not, shut your gob-hole and enjoy wasting your brain power waiting for something that might not be coming.

[imasmartgirl]

JC1, you must understand that the belief in evolution isn't against god at all. We were put on this earth and given many many clues to how things work. Scientists examine these clues and come up with the best possible reasons for these things happening. Evolution seems to fit it best, and people can actually watch it happen. Species are very good at adapting to their environment. They change and evolve over very long periods of time. This does not mean that god does not exist. We are all just human, how do you know that any religion at all is correct? Religion is always non changing and passed down thru generations of families. There are so many loopholes and things in religion you would not agree with, but people pick and choose which ones they like and which they don't. But its just too plain simple to say one thing is correct and stick with it. We need to change and evolve our own ideas to fit them with what we know. I beleive in God too, but i don't think anybody's religion is correct. Science has nothing to do with God because it doesn't matter. Scientists seek only the truth, and some of their theories have been proven wrong, but instead of sticking by a false truth, they search for a new one. We havn't gotten everything figured out yet in this world. But we keep searching. A long time ago everyone beleived without a doubt that the world was flat and that they would fall off the edge if they went near it. We now know this is silly, but back then if you would have argued against it they would think you were a nut. It took intelligent people to go and explore for themselves to find out that the earth is in fact round.

[swansont]

Yes' date=' it is strange how they came up with someone came

up with a plan to deceive the world and it has become

popular to those who don't want to live their lives

conscious of God. Isn't it more appealing to think

that you can be your own god?[/quote']

 

It's already been pointed out that this is a strawman. Science is not inherently incompatible with religion. You appear to have no clue as to what motivates other people, and it would be a mistake to think that it's exactly what motivates you.

[Sayonara]

This rubbish is ended.