I actually feel disappointed and sad for Christianity, these days, that the only people willing to validate it as truth , or think there is reason or evidence for it, are either absolute fucking morons, or some kind of conman trying to extract cash from absolute fucking morons!!
" And if evolution was a proven fact then every scientist would believe it, but a lot of scientists don't."
About 99.9 % qualified in the relavent subjects, don't just "believe" it, they are forced by their education to accept it as fact.
Pretty much all of the others (as with Duane Gish) have not done ANY useful work in his field since qualification, or live in embarrassing denial (as with Weiss).
The same is true, of astrophysics, for example,(Jason Lisle) . Most of the AIG "DR's" are bogus
The only facts are that evolution is based on unproven theories and false science. You cannot study somethign that takes millions of years. Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a proven fact are just con men who are being dishonest. The theory of evolution is far from scientific. It has never been proven and has never provided any reliable evidence. But if it makes you happy to believe a foolish fable then go ahead. Just don't expect everyone to fall for it.
@SoldierOfChrist110 "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a proven fact are just con men"
Are you saying that every cell biologist, , molecular biologist, geneticist biologist...etc, who are presenting the millions of documented and repeatably testable observances, that confirm evolution as fact, are liars and conmen? Do you say this with the full realisation that many of their findings, inform medical science, which people' lives rely on every day?? - Even creationists!!- Lol!!
Yes, they are liars, because there are many scientists that reject evolution. And those scientists that are brave enough to deny the lie of evolution can get shunned and ridiculed by other scientists, just like many other people get ridiculed for rejecting the myth of evolution. There is not a shred of reliable evidence. It is false science.
@SoldierOfChrist110"Yes, they are liars, because there are many scientists that reject evolution" No...There are not! - The thing you guys seem to lack the intellect to understand, is that science is not a matter of speculation or opinion, as religion is. A theory, formed from factual observable evidence. cannot be credibly or honestly denied by any expert. If it's a "lie", an expert who can "disprove" it as fact, has only to publish a peer review paper. No scientist has ever done this..
First of all scientists admit that they cannot get to the origin of life, but yet they insist that there was no Creator. Scientists also say that macro evolution takes millions of years. You cannot observe something that takes millions of years. When something takes millions of years you are not in the realm of science, you are in the realm of faith. Evolution is a false religion based on false science.
If scientists admit that they cannot get to the origin of life then it is wrong for them to insist that there is no Creator. And no, you cannot observe something that takes millions of years. I will defend this until the end of time because to say otherwise would just be a lie. No scientist has ever witnessed macro evolution because no scientist has been around millions of years.
@SoldierOfChrist110" If scientists admit that they cannot get to the origin of life then it is wrong for them to insist that there is no Creator"
Scientists DON'T make any statement, either way, as to whether or not there is a creator. That is an untestable RELIGIOUS belief. They have, however, undeliberately demonstrated that the superstitions and fairy tales, regarding creation, in the Book of Genesis have no truth in them. That's hardly their fault. Facts are facts!!
Tell me, what is the point in debating when you can't even be truthful? What you have said is some of the most ignorant and dishonest things I have ever heard an atheist say. You can't back up a single one of your bogus claims. After all these years no atheist has been able to give me a shred of reliable evidence. You come up with wishy-washy "evidence" that doesn't prove evolution in any way shape or form. What is your best evidence for macro evolution?
@SoldierOfChrist110 "You can't back up a single one of your bogus claims" Every thing I've said is checkable! Why don't you google up PubMed for example? While you're at it, look up "examples of observed speciation". - And when you give me your definition of what you think "Macro-evolution is, I'll cite you some more information.
You, on the other hand, have done nothing but make unexplained declarations of personal incredulity, without even offering an argument, muchless any evidence.
Everything you have said is only checkable according to your wishful thinking. What scientists and atheists don't acknowledge is that speculation is not evidence. Scientists like to create smoke and mirrors and mix truth with lies in order to make their evolution myth more believable. But on the day of judgment you will be without excuse. No scientist will come to your rescue on judgment day, only Jesus Christ can save you from your sins. By the way, TheGamanic is a liar!
@SoldierOfChrist110 " What scientists and atheists don't acknowledge is that speculation is not evidence"
Science, by definition, in not speculation. - Religion is. In order to cast doubt on this one theory, you would have had to have checked EVERY factual observation that verifies biological evolution, which has undergone the rigorous testability of peer review (There are over 277,000 on PubMed alone.
Much of the medical data, used to save lives today, relies on evolution being a fact.
@SoldierOfChrist110"Everything you have said is only checkable according to your wishful thinking"
Have you even checked a single one of the peer review observations recorded on evolution? Have you even gone into PubMed and checked what I have said regarding the date, used by doctors today, which also verifies evolution?
Check the following for example: MHC proteins, genetic variability, endogenous retroviruses, S16 ribosomal tracing, DNA sequencing.... Why this all this bogus?
@SoldierOfChrist110 "Scientists like to create smoke and mirrors and mix truth with lies"
Have you, in fact, checked ANY data regarding biological evolution, or have you just read the garbage passed out by the pseudo scientists, and diploma mill "Doctors" in "Answers in Genesis and the other religion based websites, who have a dogmatic bias to suggest that the scientists are wrong?.
If the scientists are bogus, why do you go to the doctor, or use any of their other technology??
You are getting mixed up between science and evolution. The two don't go together. Science has got nothing to do with evolution. Infact, DNA has shown that it is too complex to have come from nothing. It must have been created. Scientists cannot get to the origin of life, nor can they prove macro-evolution. So far you havn't even given your best evidence.
@SoldierOfChrist110 "You are getting mixed up between science and evolution"
No mix up, evolution IS a scientific theory, arrived at by many scientists. - Let me remind you, with your own quotes, that YOU think so too - and that you're a hypocrite:
" Scientists like to create smoke and mirrors and mix truth with lies" " What scientists and atheists don't acknowledge is that speculation is not evidence"
"Infact, DNA has shown that it is too complex to have come from nothing"
DNA, ( because of it's complexity) has also confirmed, overwhelmingly, that life has evolved.
Where is your evidence, outside of personal believe, that this shows it to have been "spake" into existence by some magical entities "incantations" only a few thousand years ago, as you seem to be suggesting? - Evidence that it happened, mind you, NOT your personal speculation that it "MUST" have been that way ??!!
"Scientists cannot get to the origin of life, nor can they prove macro-evolution. So far you havn't even given your best evidence."
I haven't bothered offering you much evidence at all. It is available to check yourself. I already did! - You, on the other hand are trying to win a debate with your own personal ignorance and deliberate lack of education on the subject. I don't see why I should feed that - You are the one making the claim - Try backing it up!
Again, you don't know the difference between science and science-fiction. To compare my PC to evolution is just utter foolishness. My PC did not evolve, it was created. If I told you that my PC evolved without a creator would you believe me? Macro evolution has never been witnessed or proven. So far you havn't given me your best evidence. You keep making assumptions that in no way, shape or form supports macro evolution.
@SoldierOfChrist110 " To compare my PC to evolution is just utter foolishness. My PC did not evolve,"
Ha ha!! What an utterly stupid, or dishonest, analogy!! According to you, human beings didn't evolve either!
I was referring to your very real and irrational denial of the science which explains biological evolution, when you accept the very same science which you rely on from medical science, aquired from the same reasoning methology which brought ALL technology, including your PC!
@SoldierOfChrist110 " If I told you that my PC evolved without a creator would you believe me?"
Of course not!! The evidence the PC is a creation of mankind is unsurmountable, just as the evidence that modern life evolved is unsurmountable. Both are observable facts of science.
How about your evidence against either of the above statements?
Yes it has!! As soon as you give my your definition(not an example) of what you are calling "macro" evolution, and why it is required to defend the existing theory, I will cite you an example of where this is observed to have taken place..
I want to be sure that you are not completely debating out of stupidity and dishonesty.
I don't want you to change your definition after I have cited an example either!
@SoldierOfChrist110" Again, you don't know the difference between science and science-fiction"
OK, let's see if we can start with an honest point of mutual agreement.
What EXACTLY are you denying here? Do you agree that every piece of pertinent and verified evidence discovered in the last 150 years, is actually accepted, by the overwhelming majority of the scientific experts, to confirm biological evolution as fact?
Can you cite a reliable scientist who has published against it?
@SoldierOfChrist110 Are you denying that there are over 277,000 peer review observations, recorded by PubMed, ALL that verify or accept evolution as fact?
Do you deny that there isn't a single publication in support of creationism, Intelligent design, nor a single publication that refutes the theory of evolution?
What exactly are you arguing here?
That you don't personally accept these facts because you are programmed , by your religion, to deny it under any circumstances?
You need to know the difference between truth and myth. Science is truth, macro evolution is myth. Nobody has ever witnessed macro evolution, and you still havn't given me your best evidence. Macro evolution has never come close to being proven. The governments are also highly intelligent people, but do you believe everything they tell the public? I sure don't. Why not just accept the Lord Jesus Christ and get saved?
@SoldierOfChrist110 First. You still haven't given a definition of macroevolution to him so how you expect him to provide evidence for it. Also your analogy with the government is a false one. I can see why governments try to hide stuff, but why scientists? If they didn't think it was a good model, they would have discarded it years and years ago, and creationism would have taken its place as a robust scientific theory. And why don't you accept Zeus the Olympian as the almighty?
@SoldierOfChrist110 "You need to know the difference between truth and myth. Science is truth, macro evolution is myth"
Then why does all the evidence acquired using the scientific method point to macroevolution as fact? - More to the point, why are you afraid to look at it with any degree of honesty?
It HAS been witnessed, but why are you stubbornly saying that the only acceptable evidence is eye witness testimony? - In EVERY other field of enquiry, forensics are considered far more reliable.
@SoldierOfChrist110 "Nobody has ever witnessed macro evolution, and you still havn't given me your best evidence"
I'll ask again : What the hell are you calling "macro evolution"? - Why are you afraid to define it, so I can offer you the appropriate evidence.
If you mean speciation of higher vertebrates, you are being gutlessly dishonest in demanding only eyewitness testimony for what takes 10's of 1000's of generations. That said, I can produce evidence that it IS happening.
@SoldierOfChrist110 Let me see if you can get this one more time!! - There are scientific understandings, relied upon, by the medical profession, to save lives, tha verify biological evolution as a fact.
In order to save reams of unecessary diologue, with someone who seems to be dodging facts, I need you to explain EXACTLY what you think "macro-evolution" is, so I can show you the appropriate evidence.
I don't want you moving goalposts after it has been shown to you.
Macro evolution has never been witnessed. You can scream, jump up and down, and rant and rage all you want. It doesn't matter. Scientists admit that they cannot get to the origin of life and they also claim that macro evolution takes millions of years, therefore it has never been observed. If you can't even be honest about this then there is no point in debating. Deep down you know the "evidence" is only speculation and assumptions.
@SoldierOfChrist110 "Macro evolution has never been witnessed. You can scream, jump up and down, and rant and rage all you want"
Nah......I don't need to do any of those things. I just need you to CLEARLY define what you think "macroevolution" means, so that I can provide you with documented evidence, satisfactory to any rational mind, that it HAS actually occurred.
"Scientists admit that they cannot get to the origin of life"
Don't you read my comment posts? I already cited a reference that biologists at Manchester univ. have eliminated some serious gaps. Check them out!!
Also , earlier, Scripps Research Institute scientists had synthesized RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves indefinitely without the help of any proteins or other cellular components.
These facts won't have filtered down to your pulpit thumping " science teacher" yet!
@SoldierOfChrist110 Haha you're hilarious. He has already refuted your claims many times over, he gives you evidence, but you blind yourself to it. He has given valid objections to your thinking, and you haven't not even tried to correct some of the flaws in it. And after a mass of comments, you still haven't given a definition for macroevolution!! Deep down you must know you are truly a moron
"If you can't even be honest about this then there is no point in debating"
Ha ha! - But you're NOT debating! - You're simply, ignoring or denying every reasoned argument and piece of evidence that is being offered to you!. You have been asked to qualify your arguments better, so you can be offered more informative responses, and you don't seem capable of doing so.
Ok, macro evolution is where one species evolves into another species. This is what scientists call macro evolution--something that has never been proven! Ok, please give me your best evidence for macro evolution.
@SoldierOfChrist110 "Ok, macro evolution is where one species evolves into another species."
Thank you!! - At last!! - Now ....Just to avoid any misunderstandings later, what are you defining as a "species"?
Is it fair to say that speciation has occured when 2 divergences from a common ancestor, or two individuals of each sex, can no longer perpetuate it's own species?
In fact, let me suggest a simpler definition. Two individuals of the same species can perpetuate its own species?
Two individuals of a different species can not perpetuate it's own species?
Would you also agree that speciation, if it does occur, is a slow process, that takes many generations. As with the different phenotypes of dogs, who look very different in size and shape, can interbreed with varying degrees of difficulty, yet they remain "dogs" because they are inter-fertile?
"Ok, macro evolution is where one species evolves into another species"
My 2 responses to this , seem to be missing so I'll ask it more simply again:
I just need to know what your definition of "species" is - I don't want there to be any misunderstanding.
I also need your acknowledgement that if "speciation" occurs, it is part of a long evolutionary process, which takes many generations, therefore there would be transitional evidence that it was occurring today, with modern species?
@SoldierOfChrist110 OK- another question to ascertain what you will accept as good evidence:- Do you consider sequenced DNA evidence reliable, such as has been offered in a court of law, to establish paternity, or to identify a single individual within his phylogenic grouping, from his biological material?
Is it a reliable way to establish the paternity, maternity, or othwise ancestry, of a given individual?
You make a lot of points but provide no evidence. The fact is is that no scientist has ever witnessed macro evolution, therefore it has never been proven. No one has ever witnessed one species evolving into another species. If you tell me that macro evolution has been observed then please provide your evidence.
@SoldierOfChrist110"No one has ever witnessed one species evolving into another species" How can you say something has never happened if you cannot honestly define what it is that has never happened? - What is a species, that has not turned into another?.
Do you agree that dogs share a common ancestry and remain the same species, even though they have been observably bred to different shapes and sizes by humanity? What makes them observably the same "species"?
Christianity has overwhelming evidence, unlike macro evolution that is based on myths and science-fiction. Those who worship their "macro evolution god" will tragically find out the truth when they appear before the real God after they die.
@SoldierOfChrist110 Still ain't given the definition? There is zero evidence for your god like any other god whatsoever. You mate are hilarious, an imbecile
Well, you would have to have the brain of a monkey to believe in macro evolution. There is overwhelming evidence for the God of heaven and Earth. Atheists just choose to be woefully ignorant of the truth. Once a person rejects God then they can live life how they like with no fear of judgment day. In reality unrepentant sin will suffer the wrath of hell if not washed away by the precious blood of Jesus.
@SoldierOfChrist110 I feel sorry for you that you have to hang onto these childish beliefs, I really do. Give me some evidence for your Christian god, and then I will rebut it ok. But please clarify to the other person you are talking to what you are defining a species as because you say it is ridiculous to say macroevolution is fact but you have not clearly laid out what that really means, therefore there is no way you can come to that conclusion rationally
And I also feel sorry for you, because if you die without Jesus you will go to a horrible hell. And the worst part is that you will never have another opportunity to repent. Once in hell you will be there for eternity. We both know that I could give you evidence for Christianity over and over again and I would be wasting my time. If a sinner does not want to repent then no amount of evidence is gonna change them. Without Jesus you cannot avoid hell.
@SoldierOfChrist110 Still didn't answer my question did you. You can't unfortunately scare with me a hell I don't believe in. Give me the evidence, don't you want to save me from eternal damnation?
@SoldierOfChrist110 You expect to believe the accounts of a couple of deluded lunatics? It is obvious that you believe in Christianity through fear of hell rather than through logic. Give me solid evidence not an eyetwitness testimony which is often the most unreliable piece of evidence of a hell actually existing.
@SoldierOfChrist110 " Christianity has overwhelming evidence, unlike macro evolution that is based on myths and science-fiction"
OK....one thing at a time!! Let's deal with your claim that macro vision has never been observed..... I need your definition of evidence, and what you are calling "species?
Stop trying to change the subject. We can laugh at your "evidence" for Christianity later! - Lol!!
@SoldierOfChrist110 "Christianity has overwhelming evidence, unlike macro evolution that is based on myths and science-fiction"
Your apparent ignorance is manifesting itself as intellectual dishonesty.
Are you, or are you not, going to define what you mean by "species", so we can establish which one of us doesn't know the difference between "macro" and "micro", and also, once and for all, that there is evidence that it happened, and is still happenin.??!!
Christianity has overwhelming evidence. I have studied this myself so deep down I know Christianity is the truth, which is why most atheists have to attack Christianity more than any other religion. Macro evolution is not a science, it is a myth. In the past scientists have been exposed as liars and deceivers time and time again.
@SoldierOfChrist110 The reason why Christianity is attacked most by atheists is because it is the most common religion in the Western World. And can you impart some of this overwhelming for Christianity please. And for the millionth time please define a "species" for him! There are undoubtedly rogue scientists (although a lot less than the number of rogue christians, preachers) however when 99% of scientists believe in evolution you gotta think they might be right on the subject.
@SoldierOfChrist110 Evolution is a fact not because scientists say rather that it is a fact and therefore scientists believe it. Scientist don't go with creation because no one has yet to put forward a valid scientific theory. Even if evolution was disproven tomorrow, that does not prove creation by the god of your choosing. However, because we start though, you have to define species please
Yes, atheists keep telling me that evolution is a fact but not once do they ever give a shred of evidence, never! All they can do is come up with unproven theories and foolish assumptions. Either give a shred of reliable evidence or admit that your claims are bogus!
@SoldierOfChrist110 As I said before, you need to give me the what a species is, according to you. That way, you can't move the goalposts. It is like moving a goal wherever you want in a soccer game, and then saying you can't score!
Correction, you didn't explain why I should believe the words of scientists over the words of Bill Wiese, Mickey Robinson, Earthquake Kelley, Howard Storm, John Paul Jackson. You are risking your eternity based on what sinful men in a lab tell you. Yet you never provide a shred of reliable evidence.
@SoldierOfChrist110 Because science can be tested. It doesn't rely solely on faulty eyewitness accounts (which is one of the weakest types of evidence). You do research, construct a hypothesis, test it using experimentation then analyze the results to see if the hypothesis is true or not. The same thing can be done with eyewitness testimonies from deluded lunatics wanting to make a quick buck
Evolutionists also make a lot of money teaching their evolution lie. But evolution can't be tested because it is not real science, it is pseudo-science. But you missed my point. My point was how do you know that scientists are telling the truth? You accuse these other men of wanting to make a quick buck, so where is your evidence that evolutionists are being honest? They make lots of money teaching a lie.
@SoldierOfChrist110 Do you actually want to know whether evolution or creationism is correct? If you do, please define what a species is. Then we can work out whether or not it is a lie.
@SoldierOfChrist110 Define a species. I have already said if the only evidence you have for the existence of something is an eyewitness testimony from a few lunatics that is not going to persuade many people! Those wanting to make a quick buck or are just deluded. No give some testable evidence (that's what you have to do in science!)
@SoldierOfChrist110 39th time: Define what a "species" is. Then we can move forward and debate the evidence for evolution and for creation that is all I want. If you were committed to discovering the truth, just do the decent thing, which I have asked for numerous times (why haven't you given it to me yet ffs!). For these last comments, I can only conclude that you just want to be bigotted in your belief and not see contradictory evidence from those much smarter than you
@SoldierOfChrist110 I have checked numerous Christian websites, and most discredit him completely as a crooked, exploiter whose ramblings have no scriptual support. That is, he is a moron trying to play on the fear of other morons like you
Yes, I accept things that are based on real science. Medication can be tested and observed by everyone. However, when you mix science with a wild story that takes millions of years you are not in the real of real science, you are in the realm of science fiction. Scientists muddle up science with myths and fables.
@SoldierOfChrist110 I don't see how it is such a wild story given that you believe there is a god who listens and watches everyone at every time but anyway. Evolution is observable and testable unlike a certain creation story...
You said that evolution is observable and testable. This is just not true. According to scientists macro evolution takes millions of years, therefore it cannot be observed or tested. Would scientists go through torture and execution for their beliefs like Jesus' disciples did? I doubt it very much.
@SoldierOfChrist110"Yes, I accept things that are based on real science. Medication can be tested and observed by everyone" Yes. and their success is often contingent on what scientists know about evolution!!
Evolution is the most strongly supported theory in science.
If the same information that tells doctors about the development of organisms including the human body, also confirms the fact of evolution, in thousands of ways which are confirmed by testability, why is only one true?
"Yes, I accept things that are based on real science. Medication can be tested and observed by everyone"
There is NOTHING about your denial of evolution, nor your presumable believe in the Biblical account of creation. That suggest the above statement to be true.
You blindly accept hearsay anecdotes, many times removed from anyone who could possibly have been in a position to witness it. Anecdotes which have been related to you by people who could not possibly know it to be true.
Your still getting mixed up with science and science-fiction. Macro evolution has never been tested, nor is their any evidence to prove it. If macro evolution was a proven fact then you wouldn't hesitate to give me some evidence. Science and macro evolution are totally different. It's an insult to science to mix it with a myth and a fable. Macro evolution is far from scientific. And scientists even admit that they cannot get to the origin of life.
@SoldierOfChrist110 "And yes, when I'm sick I do accept medical help". and ge
And do you realise that modern medical understandings, particularly those regarding histocompatability, innoculation, viral resistance, identifying pathogens, drug resistance, and many other treatments and procedures rely on the FACT of biological evolution? - And yes....even at "macro level"
Much of what modern doctors know about the chemistry of the body come from evolutionary biology. Are they liars?
@SoldierOfChrist110 "But you missed my point. My point was how do you know that scientists are telling the truth?"
Once again - OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE!! - Let me have YOUR definition of what speciation is, and I'll show you how it works!! I'll give you definitions, with examples, of how we can tell,(without relying on ANYONES word for it) that other seperate species have diverged from a single common ancestor!!
But tell me? I'm curious. Why would scientists have to lie? Especially believers?
Wrong again, you mean observable evidence "according to what scientists tell you" Hmmm, why would scientists have to lie: Maybe because they makes loads of money teaching the lie of evolution. Tell me, why would Jesus disciples allow themselves to be tortured and killed for a lie?
@SoldierOfChrist110 "Tell me, why would Jesus disciples allow themselves to be tortured and killed for a lie"
Why WOULDN'T Galileo be tortured by the Church and, to save his skin, opted to deny something he knew would soon be confirmed commonly accepted as truth, even by Christian authorities? It is because it is only lies require perpetual faith or martyrdom, to give them any authority.
Galileo was a clever, and perceptive man - The early Christian martyrs were gullible idiots!
"Wrong again, you mean observable evidence "according to what scientists tell you" "
One more time!! - Let's test your assertion. Define what you mean by "species" You claim there is no evidence that a new one has ever evolved from a common ancestor, so you must have some idea of what a "species" is?
I will be happy to show you how scientists, and we, can know this took place, without anyone having to take anyones word for it!
@SoldierOfChrist110 "Yes, atheists keep telling me that evolution is a fact but not once do they ever give a shred of evidence, never"
I'm trying to offer you all the evidence you could want!!! - Why don't you want it??
You have asserted that there is no evidence that one species ever evolved from another. Please define what you think a "species" is, and I will happily show you that it has!!
If you say it's not there, why do you fear my attempt to show you that it is?
When you say there is evdience you are just going along with what scientists tell you, but you know as well as I do that scientists have used pitiful frauds time and time again. How can you trust what they tell you?
@SoldierOfChrist110 He has looked at the fucking evidence, stupid. But anyway, tell him your definition for species (it is the 34th time I belived I have done this!)
@SoldierOfChrist110 "scientists have used pitiful frauds time and time again. How can you trust what they tell you"
Which scientists?? You haven't named any , as I asked! - And how many times do things have to be repeated to you??? : - No-one needs to rely on a scientist's word for anything!! They produce the evidence!! - It can be examined by anyone who wants to!
They also produce the goods by the way. Do you know how many drugs and medical procedures come from from this research alone?
@SoldierOfChrist110 Oh I didn't know that! So only Christian preachers who believe the universe is 6,000 years old can do science. Yeah those scientists educated at Harvard, Yale, Oxford who believe in evolution and stupid theories like gravity etc. don't have a fucking clue about science! You sir are hilarious
@SoldierOfChrist110" By the way, scientists don't produce evidence, they produce smoke and mirrors, false science"
I've filled in a great number of comment boxes to give you an opportunity to demonstrate this. - How about an example of what the hell you're talking about?
How about your definition of speciation, so we can move this discussion along?
"but you know as well as I do that scientists have used pitiful frauds time and time again"
OK - I'll bite! - Let's have some exampls of these "pitiful frauds" which" these bogus covens" of scientists throughout the world, have perpetrated on the "godfearing humanity"? Are they all working in cahoots d'ya think? They would have to be or their work couldn't be verified in peer review worldwide!
And if they are bogus, why does all the technology, which relies on their findings, actually work??
Evolutionists also make loads of money by teaching their unproven theory. There is far more proof for Chriatianity than macro evolution. I want you to give me your best evidence that humans evolved from an ape ancestor.
"but you know as well as I do that scientists have used pitiful frauds time and time again. How can you trust what they tell you?"
Are you just cutting and pasting your earlier posts?? You have said all this shit before VERBATUM!! - And I''ve responded.
ONE MORE TIME: Give me your definition of what you think "speciation" is, and I'll show you how the scientific method can determine how it HAS occurred, and why it isn't reliant on having to take anyone's word for it!
@SoldierOfChrist110 He needs to know what definitions of words you are using so that you don't change the goalposts half way through. If you don't, he can't answer your question properly
@SoldierOfChrist110 "Give me your best evidence that shows humans evolved from an ape ancestor"
Certainly!! - But let's clear up the question you've left hanging first.... What is YOUR definition of speciation?
Of course you realise that the strongest evidence for the Homidae lineage, is the overwhelming abundance of mutually verifying evidence, that was predicted by Darwin, and has confirmed everything he said , and so much more confirmed by new fields of science he'd never heard of?
@SoldierOfChrist110 I think it's time that you admit that your original proposition("macroevolution has never been proven") has been voided by your lack of response.
I've given you every opportunity to qualify and clarify this statement. It is clear from your inability to define it properly, that you hadn't a clue what "macro-evolution" actually is.
How can you say something occurred, or didn't, when you don't know what it is??
Your worldview requires, and is informed by dishonesty.
I already answered your first question but yet you still havn't answered mine. I told you that macro evolution is the belief of one kind of species evolving into another kind. I answered this question but yet you want me to answer another one. No, it's your turn to answer mine. What is your best evidence that humans evolved from an ape ancestor?
@SoldierOfChrist110 Define a species and macroevolution (42nd time), then he can answer, otherwise your question is meaningless! Why the reluctance to define the terms? Have you got something to hide?
@SoldierOfChrist110 The thing, it is impossible for him to answer your question without you defining macroevolution and a species, which i have asked you 43 times!
I asked him what his best evidence is that humans evolved from an ape ancestor. Many other atheists will give me their theory, but for some reason Tobytrim is too afraid. I understand, the "evidence" for macro evolution is foolish and flawed.
@SoldierOfChrist110 He has yet to give you any evidence because you still have not defined what a species is and macroevolution for the 44th time. That is a requirement. It is a bit like playing a sport which hasn't got rules; how can you see who has won then? I will keep going until you say it.
Actaully I told him that macro evolution is the belief of a species evolving into another kind. I gave him his answer and now he's asking another one. No, I answered his question first so now it's time for him to answer mine. Many other atheists don't refuse to give me their best evidence, so once again you prove that you are both afraid :)
@SoldierOfChrist110 "I told him that macro evolution is the belief of a species evolving into another kind"
That's not an answer if you won't define what you think a species is. What do you mean by a "species" or a "kind".
How can anyone answer a question when you won't explain what you are asking.Why are you dodging this?? You must have some idea of what you mean. Why not just say so?
@SoldierOfChrist110 Don't flatter yourself. They are not afraid, they just want clarification so you don't make the task of proving macroevolution impossible. So just define a species
@SoldierOfChrist110 You are one of the most ignorant people I have ever met. Deluded, using flawed logic with your little Pascal's Wager. I have asked almost 50 times for a simple question so we can move forward in this debate, still no answer. WHY!!! Do you not want to seek the truth And again eyewitness accounts are some of the most unreliable, especially from those wanting fame and fortune. Plus Wiese is seen as a fake anyway.
@SoldierOfChrist110 It is an incredibly sad state of affairs if you deny evolution which has 1000s of peer reviewed papers under its belt whilst you believe flimsy eyewitness accounts from people wanting to make money and fame from their "experiences". I'm sure there are people in all religion who have seen their respective heaven, hell or underworld. The mind can create marvelous, vivd experiences that can appear real but in fact hallucinations.
@SoldierOfChrist110 Again, does the fact that someone says that he has been abducted by aliens make it real? If you believe everything you hear that is an incredibly low standard of evidence and could have you believing any number of psycho claims. These people like Wiese, Keeley are playing straight into your fears of a heaven and hell you have been brought up to believe in, you are falling for the conmen hook, line and sinker.
Actually there are many other atheists that answer my question without me having to tell them what a species is, therefore there is no excuse. You are just too scared to answer because you have zero evidence.
Bill Wiese.....Mickey Robinson.....Earthquake Kelley.....Howard Storm.....John Paul Jackson--proof heaven and hell are real.
@SoldierOfChrist110 That is probably why you think you have won all your debates against them then, because they provide evidence which by any standard would go through and be counted as reliable, and you just change the goalposts to make giving evidence for macroevolution impossible. To make it a falsifiable claim, we need to establish the parameters, starting with a definition of "species", which I have asked for 51 times
Nah, I answered Tobytrim's question first so now it's his turn to answer mine. If he doesn't answer mine then he will prove that he has no reliable evidence. I'm just gonna keep repeating this until he answeres mine, seeing as I answered his first.
@SoldierOfChrist110 "If he doesn't answer mine then he will prove that he has no reliable evidence."
No. It means that I want to conclude the previous point before moving on. Actually, I'm very keen to respond to all 3, or more, questions you have left hanging here.
This seems to be your pattern. You make an unsupported statement, call it evidence, or, then start to dance when you look like being called on it.
If your arguments are good, why not clarify them beyond ANY doubt?
Oh, one more thing, Bill Wiese use to be an estate agent. He already had lots of money before he wrote his book. Bill Wiesehas studied the Bible for years. He knows that telling lies is a sin that will send a person to hell if not repented of. He has absolutely no reason to tell lies to make money because he already had lots of money beforehand. Wake up before it's too late.
@SoldierOfChrist110 If he is has studied the Bible, how come on a Christian website I went which went through some of his claims it said that Wiese had no scriptual support? And just because you had some money before doesn't mean you can't be hungry for more fame and more money. And what if you are wrong and are instead consigned to a life flitting beside the shores of the River Styx? Wake up from your fantasy world
Because there are some Christians who don't believe in hell. There are other websites from Christians who do support what Bill Wiese says. I'm guessing you went looking for the websites that did not agree with him? If Bill Wiese made the whole thing up then he is either brave or stupid because he knows that telling lies will send him to hell. And there are many other people who have reported on hell, not just Bill Wiese.
@SoldierOfChrist110 No, they believe in hell. They just think he is a lunatic. And as a matter of fact, I just put in Bill Wiese into google, and got that. Wiese is not brave or stupid; it is possible he was hallucinating and actually thought these things were happening whilst they actually weren't. That wouldn't be lying but it would the events untrue. Or he is lying and instead just wants to make as much money, fame as possible
Like I said, there are many others who give their testimony of heaven and hell. If you want to believe that it was all in their head then believe what you want. When you die you will leave your body whether you believe it or not, there will be no stopping it. And without Jesus Christ you will go to a horrible hell without any hope of salvation. You will regret it for eternity. Your choice.
@SoldierOfChrist110 Pascal's Wager, you retard, such a flawed argument, and if you think that is the best way to live your life, on a lie, then be my guest but it isn't for me. Jesus sounds like a right bastard for creating hell for people, people who use logic to realise that god is imaginary
Pascal Wager was far more intelligent than me and you, and if you die without Jesus Christ you will regret it for eternity. Hell is more horrible than what our minds are able to conceive. But if believing the lie of evolution will make you happy in this very short life then enjoy it while it lasts because those who live a sinful life will be in for a rude awakening when they leave this life. Wake up, accept Jesus Christ, and get saved.
@SoldierOfChrist110 I don't see how his intelligence makes up for the fact that it is a flawed argument. And to see if evolution is a lie like you say it is, define species and kind for the 52nd time! All you are doing is being a hypocrite. You need to clarify the argument for it to make any sense whatsoever. That's what they do in science (somehing you clearly have no grasp of)
Wow this guy's a creep.
oscarmarin1995 2 months ago
I dnt get it
Mindslave1985 4 months ago
There is a woman having sex in the background it sounds like it.
13SuperKings 6 months ago
is this a joke?
nightslullaby720 7 months ago
@nightslullaby720 Just look at his name. It's pretty obvious the guy's a creep poe/trolll
oscarmarin1995 2 months ago
So you are trying to do God's work while enjoying porn? I thought that was a No No. By the way I am not a Christian.
teyut88 8 months ago
So the Christians watch porn?
teyut88 8 months ago
WOW! Porn!!!!!
teyut88 8 months ago
What the hell is up with the porn or whatever? Can't consentrate on what he's saying.
Phirelord77 10 months ago
there's porn in the background?
manugnauinggshtrajk 10 months ago 2
Uh... does he have a porn video playing off camera or did you add that?
Guitcad1 10 months ago
I actually feel disappointed and sad for Christianity, these days, that the only people willing to validate it as truth , or think there is reason or evidence for it, are either absolute fucking morons, or some kind of conman trying to extract cash from absolute fucking morons!!
Tobytrim 10 months ago
" And if evolution was a proven fact then every scientist would believe it, but a lot of scientists don't."
About 99.9 % qualified in the relavent subjects, don't just "believe" it, they are forced by their education to accept it as fact.
Pretty much all of the others (as with Duane Gish) have not done ANY useful work in his field since qualification, or live in embarrassing denial (as with Weiss).
The same is true, of astrophysics, for example,(Jason Lisle) . Most of the AIG "DR's" are bogus
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@Tobytrim
The only facts are that evolution is based on unproven theories and false science. You cannot study somethign that takes millions of years. Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a proven fact are just con men who are being dishonest. The theory of evolution is far from scientific. It has never been proven and has never provided any reliable evidence. But if it makes you happy to believe a foolish fable then go ahead. Just don't expect everyone to fall for it.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a proven fact are just con men"
Are you saying that every cell biologist, , molecular biologist, geneticist biologist...etc, who are presenting the millions of documented and repeatably testable observances, that confirm evolution as fact, are liars and conmen? Do you say this with the full realisation that many of their findings, inform medical science, which people' lives rely on every day?? - Even creationists!!- Lol!!
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@Tobytrim
Yes, they are liars, because there are many scientists that reject evolution. And those scientists that are brave enough to deny the lie of evolution can get shunned and ridiculed by other scientists, just like many other people get ridiculed for rejecting the myth of evolution. There is not a shred of reliable evidence. It is false science.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110"Yes, they are liars, because there are many scientists that reject evolution" No...There are not! - The thing you guys seem to lack the intellect to understand, is that science is not a matter of speculation or opinion, as religion is. A theory, formed from factual observable evidence. cannot be credibly or honestly denied by any expert. If it's a "lie", an expert who can "disprove" it as fact, has only to publish a peer review paper. No scientist has ever done this..
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@Tobytrim
First of all scientists admit that they cannot get to the origin of life, but yet they insist that there was no Creator. Scientists also say that macro evolution takes millions of years. You cannot observe something that takes millions of years. When something takes millions of years you are not in the realm of science, you are in the realm of faith. Evolution is a false religion based on false science.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 " First of all scientists admit that they cannot get to the origin of life"
Why does that make scientists liars?? - What the hell has abiogenesis (chemistry) got to do with Biological evolution (biology, zoology) ??
"You cannot observe something that takes millions of years"
Yes you can!! You mean it cannot be WITNESSED by any single human being.
Forensically, many things can be observed to have happened. The growth of an 8,000 year old tree, by it's rings, for example.
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@Tobytrim
If scientists admit that they cannot get to the origin of life then it is wrong for them to insist that there is no Creator. And no, you cannot observe something that takes millions of years. I will defend this until the end of time because to say otherwise would just be a lie. No scientist has ever witnessed macro evolution because no scientist has been around millions of years.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110" If scientists admit that they cannot get to the origin of life then it is wrong for them to insist that there is no Creator"
Scientists DON'T make any statement, either way, as to whether or not there is a creator. That is an untestable RELIGIOUS belief. They have, however, undeliberately demonstrated that the superstitions and fairy tales, regarding creation, in the Book of Genesis have no truth in them. That's hardly their fault. Facts are facts!!
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@Tobytrim
Tell me, what is the point in debating when you can't even be truthful? What you have said is some of the most ignorant and dishonest things I have ever heard an atheist say. You can't back up a single one of your bogus claims. After all these years no atheist has been able to give me a shred of reliable evidence. You come up with wishy-washy "evidence" that doesn't prove evolution in any way shape or form. What is your best evidence for macro evolution?
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 "You can't back up a single one of your bogus claims" Every thing I've said is checkable! Why don't you google up PubMed for example? While you're at it, look up "examples of observed speciation". - And when you give me your definition of what you think "Macro-evolution is, I'll cite you some more information.
You, on the other hand, have done nothing but make unexplained declarations of personal incredulity, without even offering an argument, muchless any evidence.
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@Tobytrim
Everything you have said is only checkable according to your wishful thinking. What scientists and atheists don't acknowledge is that speculation is not evidence. Scientists like to create smoke and mirrors and mix truth with lies in order to make their evolution myth more believable. But on the day of judgment you will be without excuse. No scientist will come to your rescue on judgment day, only Jesus Christ can save you from your sins. By the way, TheGamanic is a liar!
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 " What scientists and atheists don't acknowledge is that speculation is not evidence"
Science, by definition, in not speculation. - Religion is. In order to cast doubt on this one theory, you would have had to have checked EVERY factual observation that verifies biological evolution, which has undergone the rigorous testability of peer review (There are over 277,000 on PubMed alone.
Much of the medical data, used to save lives today, relies on evolution being a fact.
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110"Everything you have said is only checkable according to your wishful thinking"
Have you even checked a single one of the peer review observations recorded on evolution? Have you even gone into PubMed and checked what I have said regarding the date, used by doctors today, which also verifies evolution?
Check the following for example: MHC proteins, genetic variability, endogenous retroviruses, S16 ribosomal tracing, DNA sequencing.... Why this all this bogus?
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 "Scientists like to create smoke and mirrors and mix truth with lies"
Have you, in fact, checked ANY data regarding biological evolution, or have you just read the garbage passed out by the pseudo scientists, and diploma mill "Doctors" in "Answers in Genesis and the other religion based websites, who have a dogmatic bias to suggest that the scientists are wrong?.
If the scientists are bogus, why do you go to the doctor, or use any of their other technology??
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@Tobytrim
You are getting mixed up between science and evolution. The two don't go together. Science has got nothing to do with evolution. Infact, DNA has shown that it is too complex to have come from nothing. It must have been created. Scientists cannot get to the origin of life, nor can they prove macro-evolution. So far you havn't even given your best evidence.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SoldierOfChrist110 "You are getting mixed up between science and evolution"
No mix up, evolution IS a scientific theory, arrived at by many scientists. - Let me remind you, with your own quotes, that YOU think so too - and that you're a hypocrite:
" Scientists like to create smoke and mirrors and mix truth with lies" " What scientists and atheists don't acknowledge is that speculation is not evidence"
Tobytrim 10 months ago
"Infact, DNA has shown that it is too complex to have come from nothing"
DNA, ( because of it's complexity) has also confirmed, overwhelmingly, that life has evolved.
Where is your evidence, outside of personal believe, that this shows it to have been "spake" into existence by some magical entities "incantations" only a few thousand years ago, as you seem to be suggesting? - Evidence that it happened, mind you, NOT your personal speculation that it "MUST" have been that way ??!!
Tobytrim 10 months ago
"Scientists cannot get to the origin of life, nor can they prove macro-evolution. So far you havn't even given your best evidence."
I haven't bothered offering you much evidence at all. It is available to check yourself. I already did! - You, on the other hand are trying to win a debate with your own personal ignorance and deliberate lack of education on the subject. I don't see why I should feed that - You are the one making the claim - Try backing it up!
Tobytrim 10 months ago
Scientists cannot get to the origin of life, nor can they prove macro-evolution. So far you haven't even given your best evidence.
Haha! Your "science pastor" is out of date!! :
1) Molecular biologists HAVE synthesized self replicating organic molecules complimentry with life. (Man Uni 2009/10/11)
2) "Macro" speciation has been observed to have occurred, too many times to cite on a comment box!
3) Speciation has even been "witnessed" in a lab!
Your ignorance is YOUR problem - not mine!!
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@Tobytrim
Again, you don't know the difference between science and science-fiction. To compare my PC to evolution is just utter foolishness. My PC did not evolve, it was created. If I told you that my PC evolved without a creator would you believe me? Macro evolution has never been witnessed or proven. So far you havn't given me your best evidence. You keep making assumptions that in no way, shape or form supports macro evolution.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 You are a fucking moron, end of. Actually research stuff about evolution before coming up with these pathetic arguments
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 " To compare my PC to evolution is just utter foolishness. My PC did not evolve,"
Ha ha!! What an utterly stupid, or dishonest, analogy!! According to you, human beings didn't evolve either!
I was referring to your very real and irrational denial of the science which explains biological evolution, when you accept the very same science which you rely on from medical science, aquired from the same reasoning methology which brought ALL technology, including your PC!
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 " If I told you that my PC evolved without a creator would you believe me?"
Of course not!! The evidence the PC is a creation of mankind is unsurmountable, just as the evidence that modern life evolved is unsurmountable. Both are observable facts of science.
How about your evidence against either of the above statements?
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110" Macro evolution has never been witnessed or proven"
Yes it has!! As soon as you give my your definition(not an example) of what you are calling "macro" evolution, and why it is required to defend the existing theory, I will cite you an example of where this is observed to have taken place..
I want to be sure that you are not completely debating out of stupidity and dishonesty.
I don't want you to change your definition after I have cited an example either!
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110" Again, you don't know the difference between science and science-fiction"
OK, let's see if we can start with an honest point of mutual agreement.
What EXACTLY are you denying here? Do you agree that every piece of pertinent and verified evidence discovered in the last 150 years, is actually accepted, by the overwhelming majority of the scientific experts, to confirm biological evolution as fact?
Can you cite a reliable scientist who has published against it?
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 Are you denying that there are over 277,000 peer review observations, recorded by PubMed, ALL that verify or accept evolution as fact?
Do you deny that there isn't a single publication in support of creationism, Intelligent design, nor a single publication that refutes the theory of evolution?
What exactly are you arguing here?
That you don't personally accept these facts because you are programmed , by your religion, to deny it under any circumstances?
This we know!!
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@Tobytrim
You need to know the difference between truth and myth. Science is truth, macro evolution is myth. Nobody has ever witnessed macro evolution, and you still havn't given me your best evidence. Macro evolution has never come close to being proven. The governments are also highly intelligent people, but do you believe everything they tell the public? I sure don't. Why not just accept the Lord Jesus Christ and get saved?
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 First. You still haven't given a definition of macroevolution to him so how you expect him to provide evidence for it. Also your analogy with the government is a false one. I can see why governments try to hide stuff, but why scientists? If they didn't think it was a good model, they would have discarded it years and years ago, and creationism would have taken its place as a robust scientific theory. And why don't you accept Zeus the Olympian as the almighty?
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 "You need to know the difference between truth and myth. Science is truth, macro evolution is myth"
Then why does all the evidence acquired using the scientific method point to macroevolution as fact? - More to the point, why are you afraid to look at it with any degree of honesty?
It HAS been witnessed, but why are you stubbornly saying that the only acceptable evidence is eye witness testimony? - In EVERY other field of enquiry, forensics are considered far more reliable.
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 "Nobody has ever witnessed macro evolution, and you still havn't given me your best evidence"
I'll ask again : What the hell are you calling "macro evolution"? - Why are you afraid to define it, so I can offer you the appropriate evidence.
If you mean speciation of higher vertebrates, you are being gutlessly dishonest in demanding only eyewitness testimony for what takes 10's of 1000's of generations. That said, I can produce evidence that it IS happening.
Define "macro"?
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 "The governments are also highly intelligent people, but do you believe everything they tell the public?"
Ha! Yet you believe what some poorly educated moron, thumping a pulpit, tells you without evidence, eh?
Governments can lie and get away with it. - So can pulpit thumpers, and holy scriptures.
Scientists can't. - They offer TESTABLE evidence, subject to REPEATABILITY. Their unsupported word is as meaningless as anyone elses.
Why can't you grasp that?
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 Let me see if you can get this one more time!! - There are scientific understandings, relied upon, by the medical profession, to save lives, tha verify biological evolution as a fact.
In order to save reams of unecessary diologue, with someone who seems to be dodging facts, I need you to explain EXACTLY what you think "macro-evolution" is, so I can show you the appropriate evidence.
I don't want you moving goalposts after it has been shown to you.
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@Tobytrim
Macro evolution has never been witnessed. You can scream, jump up and down, and rant and rage all you want. It doesn't matter. Scientists admit that they cannot get to the origin of life and they also claim that macro evolution takes millions of years, therefore it has never been observed. If you can't even be honest about this then there is no point in debating. Deep down you know the "evidence" is only speculation and assumptions.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 "Macro evolution has never been witnessed. You can scream, jump up and down, and rant and rage all you want"
Nah......I don't need to do any of those things. I just need you to CLEARLY define what you think "macroevolution" means, so that I can provide you with documented evidence, satisfactory to any rational mind, that it HAS actually occurred.
How about it?
Tobytrim 10 months ago
"Scientists admit that they cannot get to the origin of life"
Don't you read my comment posts? I already cited a reference that biologists at Manchester univ. have eliminated some serious gaps. Check them out!!
Also , earlier, Scripps Research Institute scientists had synthesized RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves indefinitely without the help of any proteins or other cellular components.
These facts won't have filtered down to your pulpit thumping " science teacher" yet!
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 Haha you're hilarious. He has already refuted your claims many times over, he gives you evidence, but you blind yourself to it. He has given valid objections to your thinking, and you haven't not even tried to correct some of the flaws in it. And after a mass of comments, you still haven't given a definition for macroevolution!! Deep down you must know you are truly a moron
TheGamanic 10 months ago
"If you can't even be honest about this then there is no point in debating"
Ha ha! - But you're NOT debating! - You're simply, ignoring or denying every reasoned argument and piece of evidence that is being offered to you!. You have been asked to qualify your arguments better, so you can be offered more informative responses, and you don't seem capable of doing so.
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@Tobytrim
Ok, macro evolution is where one species evolves into another species. This is what scientists call macro evolution--something that has never been proven! Ok, please give me your best evidence for macro evolution.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 "Ok, macro evolution is where one species evolves into another species."
Thank you!! - At last!! - Now ....Just to avoid any misunderstandings later, what are you defining as a "species"?
Is it fair to say that speciation has occured when 2 divergences from a common ancestor, or two individuals of each sex, can no longer perpetuate it's own species?
Tobytrim 10 months ago
In fact, let me suggest a simpler definition. Two individuals of the same species can perpetuate its own species?
Two individuals of a different species can not perpetuate it's own species?
Would you also agree that speciation, if it does occur, is a slow process, that takes many generations. As with the different phenotypes of dogs, who look very different in size and shape, can interbreed with varying degrees of difficulty, yet they remain "dogs" because they are inter-fertile?
Tobytrim 10 months ago
"Ok, macro evolution is where one species evolves into another species"
My 2 responses to this , seem to be missing so I'll ask it more simply again:
I just need to know what your definition of "species" is - I don't want there to be any misunderstanding.
I also need your acknowledgement that if "speciation" occurs, it is part of a long evolutionary process, which takes many generations, therefore there would be transitional evidence that it was occurring today, with modern species?
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 OK- another question to ascertain what you will accept as good evidence:- Do you consider sequenced DNA evidence reliable, such as has been offered in a court of law, to establish paternity, or to identify a single individual within his phylogenic grouping, from his biological material?
Is it a reliable way to establish the paternity, maternity, or othwise ancestry, of a given individual?
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@Tobytrim
You make a lot of points but provide no evidence. The fact is is that no scientist has ever witnessed macro evolution, therefore it has never been proven. No one has ever witnessed one species evolving into another species. If you tell me that macro evolution has been observed then please provide your evidence.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 He is just trying to clear some stuff up before he completely demolishes you in the argument :)
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 "No one has ever witnessed one species evolving into another species"
Well suppose you define what you call "species", so I can be sure you understand the evidence?
Then I will demonstrate how speciation has been observed to have happened many times.
For example, why would you call dogs the same "species" even though they have many different shapes and sizes?
Why are cats and dogs a different "species"
Without an agreed definition, it is just a pointless word !
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110"No one has ever witnessed one species evolving into another species" How can you say something has never happened if you cannot honestly define what it is that has never happened? - What is a species, that has not turned into another?.
Do you agree that dogs share a common ancestry and remain the same species, even though they have been observably bred to different shapes and sizes by humanity? What makes them observably the same "species"?
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 "No one has ever witnessed one species evolving into another species"
Why, for example, are horses the same "species", even though some breeds have a different number of ribs, and other morphological differences?
Would you agree that horses, donkeys, and zebras share a common ancestry, and/ or are the same basic "species.
You are not being very clear on what you consider "macroevolution" to be, or what a "species" is.
You don't seem to know what you are talking about!
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 "No one has ever witnessed one species evolving into another species"
Why, for example, are horses the same "species", even though some breeds have a different number of ribs, and other morphological differences?
Would you agree that horses, donkeys, and zebras share a common ancestry, and/ or are the same basic "species??
You are not being very clear on what you consider "macroevolution" to be, or what a "species" is.
You don't seem to know what you are talking about!
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@Tobytrim
Christianity has overwhelming evidence, unlike macro evolution that is based on myths and science-fiction. Those who worship their "macro evolution god" will tragically find out the truth when they appear before the real God after they die.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 Still ain't given the definition? There is zero evidence for your god like any other god whatsoever. You mate are hilarious, an imbecile
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@TheGamanic
Well, you would have to have the brain of a monkey to believe in macro evolution. There is overwhelming evidence for the God of heaven and Earth. Atheists just choose to be woefully ignorant of the truth. Once a person rejects God then they can live life how they like with no fear of judgment day. In reality unrepentant sin will suffer the wrath of hell if not washed away by the precious blood of Jesus.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 I feel sorry for you that you have to hang onto these childish beliefs, I really do. Give me some evidence for your Christian god, and then I will rebut it ok. But please clarify to the other person you are talking to what you are defining a species as because you say it is ridiculous to say macroevolution is fact but you have not clearly laid out what that really means, therefore there is no way you can come to that conclusion rationally
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@TheGamanic
And I also feel sorry for you, because if you die without Jesus you will go to a horrible hell. And the worst part is that you will never have another opportunity to repent. Once in hell you will be there for eternity. We both know that I could give you evidence for Christianity over and over again and I would be wasting my time. If a sinner does not want to repent then no amount of evidence is gonna change them. Without Jesus you cannot avoid hell.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 Still didn't answer my question did you. You can't unfortunately scare with me a hell I don't believe in. Give me the evidence, don't you want to save me from eternal damnation?
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@TheGamanic
Bill Wiese.....Mickey Robinson.....Earthquake Kelley
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 You expect to believe the accounts of a couple of deluded lunatics? It is obvious that you believe in Christianity through fear of hell rather than through logic. Give me solid evidence not an eyetwitness testimony which is often the most unreliable piece of evidence of a hell actually existing.
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@TheGamanic
Bill Wiese.....Mickey Robinson.....Earthquake Kelley
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 You...Fucking...Retard
TheGamanic 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SoldierOfChrist110 " Christianity has overwhelming evidence, unlike macro evolution that is based on myths and science-fiction"
OK....one thing at a time!! Let's deal with your claim that macro vision has never been observed..... I need your definition of evidence, and what you are calling "species?
Stop trying to change the subject. We can laugh at your "evidence" for Christianity later! - Lol!!
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 "Christianity has overwhelming evidence, unlike macro evolution that is based on myths and science-fiction"
Your apparent ignorance is manifesting itself as intellectual dishonesty.
Are you, or are you not, going to define what you mean by "species", so we can establish which one of us doesn't know the difference between "macro" and "micro", and also, once and for all, that there is evidence that it happened, and is still happenin.??!!
What do YOU think speciation is?
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@Tobytrim
Christianity has overwhelming evidence. I have studied this myself so deep down I know Christianity is the truth, which is why most atheists have to attack Christianity more than any other religion. Macro evolution is not a science, it is a myth. In the past scientists have been exposed as liars and deceivers time and time again.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 The reason why Christianity is attacked most by atheists is because it is the most common religion in the Western World. And can you impart some of this overwhelming for Christianity please. And for the millionth time please define a "species" for him! There are undoubtedly rogue scientists (although a lot less than the number of rogue christians, preachers) however when 99% of scientists believe in evolution you gotta think they might be right on the subject.
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@TheGamanic
Howard Storm.....Bill Wiese.....Mickey Robinson.....Earthquake Kelley.....John Paul Jackson--proof heaven and hell are real!
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 So is the guy in the mental home near to me who says he is Napoleon really the 19th century Frenchman just because he says so?
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@TheGamanic
Thankyou, you have done a checkmate! So tell me, is the theory of evolution true just because scientists say so?
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 Evolution is a fact not because scientists say rather that it is a fact and therefore scientists believe it. Scientist don't go with creation because no one has yet to put forward a valid scientific theory. Even if evolution was disproven tomorrow, that does not prove creation by the god of your choosing. However, because we start though, you have to define species please
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@TheGamanic
Yes, atheists keep telling me that evolution is a fact but not once do they ever give a shred of evidence, never! All they can do is come up with unproven theories and foolish assumptions. Either give a shred of reliable evidence or admit that your claims are bogus!
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 As I said before, you need to give me the what a species is, according to you. That way, you can't move the goalposts. It is like moving a goal wherever you want in a soccer game, and then saying you can't score!
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@TheGamanic
Correction, you didn't explain why I should believe the words of scientists over the words of Bill Wiese, Mickey Robinson, Earthquake Kelley, Howard Storm, John Paul Jackson. You are risking your eternity based on what sinful men in a lab tell you. Yet you never provide a shred of reliable evidence.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 Because science can be tested. It doesn't rely solely on faulty eyewitness accounts (which is one of the weakest types of evidence). You do research, construct a hypothesis, test it using experimentation then analyze the results to see if the hypothesis is true or not. The same thing can be done with eyewitness testimonies from deluded lunatics wanting to make a quick buck
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@TheGamanic
Evolutionists also make a lot of money teaching their evolution lie. But evolution can't be tested because it is not real science, it is pseudo-science. But you missed my point. My point was how do you know that scientists are telling the truth? You accuse these other men of wanting to make a quick buck, so where is your evidence that evolutionists are being honest? They make lots of money teaching a lie.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 Do you actually want to know whether evolution or creationism is correct? If you do, please define what a species is. Then we can work out whether or not it is a lie.
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@TheGamanic
Bill Wiese.....Mickey Robinson.....Earthquake Kelley.....John Paul Jackson
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 Define a species. I have already said if the only evidence you have for the existence of something is an eyewitness testimony from a few lunatics that is not going to persuade many people! Those wanting to make a quick buck or are just deluded. No give some testable evidence (that's what you have to do in science!)
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@TheGamanic
Bill Wiese had thousands of pounds before he even wrote his book. Evolutionists also make thousands of dollars for telling tales.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 39th time: Define what a "species" is. Then we can move forward and debate the evidence for evolution and for creation that is all I want. If you were committed to discovering the truth, just do the decent thing, which I have asked for numerous times (why haven't you given it to me yet ffs!). For these last comments, I can only conclude that you just want to be bigotted in your belief and not see contradictory evidence from those much smarter than you
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 I have checked numerous Christian websites, and most discredit him completely as a crooked, exploiter whose ramblings have no scriptual support. That is, he is a moron trying to play on the fear of other morons like you
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@TheGamanic
There are many more people other than Bill Wiese that can confirm hell is real. And yes, when I'm sick I do accept medical help.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 So you accept the help of scientists who have done studies to see what drugs work best, agree?
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@TheGamanic
Yes, I accept things that are based on real science. Medication can be tested and observed by everyone. However, when you mix science with a wild story that takes millions of years you are not in the real of real science, you are in the realm of science fiction. Scientists muddle up science with myths and fables.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 I don't see how it is such a wild story given that you believe there is a god who listens and watches everyone at every time but anyway. Evolution is observable and testable unlike a certain creation story...
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@TheGamanic
You said that evolution is observable and testable. This is just not true. According to scientists macro evolution takes millions of years, therefore it cannot be observed or tested. Would scientists go through torture and execution for their beliefs like Jesus' disciples did? I doubt it very much.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 Before I can answer that question, you need to define a species (41st time)
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110"Yes, I accept things that are based on real science. Medication can be tested and observed by everyone" Yes. and their success is often contingent on what scientists know about evolution!!
Evolution is the most strongly supported theory in science.
If the same information that tells doctors about the development of organisms including the human body, also confirms the fact of evolution, in thousands of ways which are confirmed by testability, why is only one true?
Tobytrim 10 months ago
"Yes, I accept things that are based on real science. Medication can be tested and observed by everyone"
So can evolution - You don't want me to show you this. - What is your definition of a species?
Tobytrim 10 months ago
" However, when you mix science with a wild story that takes millions of years you are not in the real of real science"
Why? What has the amount of years to do with anything?
If you saw a tree, with a plaque on it that said it was planted 300 hundred years ago, what are you most likely to believe?:
A) The date on the plaque?
B) The dendrochologist count of it's rings?
C) Carbon dating of it?
D) All three (assuming they agreed)?
"A" can lie - B,C,and D can't!
Tobytrim 10 months ago
"Yes, I accept things that are based on real science. Medication can be tested and observed by everyone"
There is NOTHING about your denial of evolution, nor your presumable believe in the Biblical account of creation. That suggest the above statement to be true.
You blindly accept hearsay anecdotes, many times removed from anyone who could possibly have been in a position to witness it. Anecdotes which have been related to you by people who could not possibly know it to be true.
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@Tobytrim
Your still getting mixed up with science and science-fiction. Macro evolution has never been tested, nor is their any evidence to prove it. If macro evolution was a proven fact then you wouldn't hesitate to give me some evidence. Science and macro evolution are totally different. It's an insult to science to mix it with a myth and a fable. Macro evolution is far from scientific. And scientists even admit that they cannot get to the origin of life.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 What is a species? 42nd time)
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 Origin of life has nothing at all to do with evolution
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 "And yes, when I'm sick I do accept medical help". and ge
And do you realise that modern medical understandings, particularly those regarding histocompatability, innoculation, viral resistance, identifying pathogens, drug resistance, and many other treatments and procedures rely on the FACT of biological evolution? - And yes....even at "macro level"
Much of what modern doctors know about the chemistry of the body come from evolutionary biology. Are they liars?
Tobytrim 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"There are many more people other than Bill Wiese that can confirm hell is real"
No- They can't CONFIRM it at all. They can offer witness testimony. Witnesses can and do lie... - Forensic evidence can't!!
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 "But you missed my point. My point was how do you know that scientists are telling the truth?"
Once again - OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE!! - Let me have YOUR definition of what speciation is, and I'll show you how it works!! I'll give you definitions, with examples, of how we can tell,(without relying on ANYONES word for it) that other seperate species have diverged from a single common ancestor!!
But tell me? I'm curious. Why would scientists have to lie? Especially believers?
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@Tobytrim Also they would probably get as much money if not more by the pro-creation lobby if they researched the flaws in evolution.
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@Tobytrim
Wrong again, you mean observable evidence "according to what scientists tell you" Hmmm, why would scientists have to lie: Maybe because they makes loads of money teaching the lie of evolution. Tell me, why would Jesus disciples allow themselves to be tortured and killed for a lie?
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 Why are you bringing Jesus into evolution. What does that have to do with science?
TheGamanic 10 months ago
Comment removed
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 Do you accept medicine when you are sick? Do you benefit from using electricity, driving around in cars etc.?
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 "Tell me, why would Jesus disciples allow themselves to be tortured and killed for a lie"
Why WOULDN'T Galileo be tortured by the Church and, to save his skin, opted to deny something he knew would soon be confirmed commonly accepted as truth, even by Christian authorities? It is because it is only lies require perpetual faith or martyrdom, to give them any authority.
Galileo was a clever, and perceptive man - The early Christian martyrs were gullible idiots!
Tobytrim 10 months ago
"Wrong again, you mean observable evidence "according to what scientists tell you" "
One more time!! - Let's test your assertion. Define what you mean by "species" You claim there is no evidence that a new one has ever evolved from a common ancestor, so you must have some idea of what a "species" is?
I will be happy to show you how scientists, and we, can know this took place, without anyone having to take anyones word for it!
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 "Yes, atheists keep telling me that evolution is a fact but not once do they ever give a shred of evidence, never"
I'm trying to offer you all the evidence you could want!!! - Why don't you want it??
You have asserted that there is no evidence that one species ever evolved from another. Please define what you think a "species" is, and I will happily show you that it has!!
If you say it's not there, why do you fear my attempt to show you that it is?
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@Tobytrim
When you say there is evdience you are just going along with what scientists tell you, but you know as well as I do that scientists have used pitiful frauds time and time again. How can you trust what they tell you?
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 He has looked at the fucking evidence, stupid. But anyway, tell him your definition for species (it is the 34th time I belived I have done this!)
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 "scientists have used pitiful frauds time and time again. How can you trust what they tell you"
Which scientists?? You haven't named any , as I asked! - And how many times do things have to be repeated to you??? : - No-one needs to rely on a scientist's word for anything!! They produce the evidence!! - It can be examined by anyone who wants to!
They also produce the goods by the way. Do you know how many drugs and medical procedures come from from this research alone?
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@Tobytrim
By the way, scientists don't produce evidence, they produce smoke and mirrors, false science.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 Oh I didn't know that! So only Christian preachers who believe the universe is 6,000 years old can do science. Yeah those scientists educated at Harvard, Yale, Oxford who believe in evolution and stupid theories like gravity etc. don't have a fucking clue about science! You sir are hilarious
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110" By the way, scientists don't produce evidence, they produce smoke and mirrors, false science"
I've filled in a great number of comment boxes to give you an opportunity to demonstrate this. - How about an example of what the hell you're talking about?
How about your definition of speciation, so we can move this discussion along?
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@Tobytrim
I see, your not gonna give me your best evidence of humans evolving from ape ancestors. It's ok, I wasn't expecting any.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 40th time: Define speciation PLEASE
TheGamanic 10 months ago
"but you know as well as I do that scientists have used pitiful frauds time and time again"
OK - I'll bite! - Let's have some exampls of these "pitiful frauds" which" these bogus covens" of scientists throughout the world, have perpetrated on the "godfearing humanity"? Are they all working in cahoots d'ya think? They would have to be or their work couldn't be verified in peer review worldwide!
And if they are bogus, why does all the technology, which relies on their findings, actually work??
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@Tobytrim
Evolutionists also make loads of money by teaching their unproven theory. There is far more proof for Chriatianity than macro evolution. I want you to give me your best evidence that humans evolved from an ape ancestor.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 36th time: Explain definition of a species
TheGamanic 10 months ago
"but you know as well as I do that scientists have used pitiful frauds time and time again. How can you trust what they tell you?"
Are you just cutting and pasting your earlier posts?? You have said all this shit before VERBATUM!! - And I''ve responded.
ONE MORE TIME: Give me your definition of what you think "speciation" is, and I'll show you how the scientific method can determine how it HAS occurred, and why it isn't reliant on having to take anyone's word for it!
Here's your chance!
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@Tobytrim
Give me your best evidence that shows humans evolved from an ape ancestor.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 He needs to know what definitions of words you are using so that you don't change the goalposts half way through. If you don't, he can't answer your question properly
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 "Give me your best evidence that shows humans evolved from an ape ancestor"
Certainly!! - But let's clear up the question you've left hanging first.... What is YOUR definition of speciation?
Of course you realise that the strongest evidence for the Homidae lineage, is the overwhelming abundance of mutually verifying evidence, that was predicted by Darwin, and has confirmed everything he said , and so much more confirmed by new fields of science he'd never heard of?
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 I think it's time that you admit that your original proposition("macroevolution has never been proven") has been voided by your lack of response.
I've given you every opportunity to qualify and clarify this statement. It is clear from your inability to define it properly, that you hadn't a clue what "macro-evolution" actually is.
How can you say something occurred, or didn't, when you don't know what it is??
Your worldview requires, and is informed by dishonesty.
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@Tobytrim
I already answered your first question but yet you still havn't answered mine. I told you that macro evolution is the belief of one kind of species evolving into another kind. I answered this question but yet you want me to answer another one. No, it's your turn to answer mine. What is your best evidence that humans evolved from an ape ancestor?
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 Define a species and macroevolution (42nd time), then he can answer, otherwise your question is meaningless! Why the reluctance to define the terms? Have you got something to hide?
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@TheGamanic
I already answered his first question but he still hasn't answered mine. What's with the double standards? Have you got something to hide?
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 The thing, it is impossible for him to answer your question without you defining macroevolution and a species, which i have asked you 43 times!
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@TheGamanic
I asked him what his best evidence is that humans evolved from an ape ancestor. Many other atheists will give me their theory, but for some reason Tobytrim is too afraid. I understand, the "evidence" for macro evolution is foolish and flawed.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 He has yet to give you any evidence because you still have not defined what a species is and macroevolution for the 44th time. That is a requirement. It is a bit like playing a sport which hasn't got rules; how can you see who has won then? I will keep going until you say it.
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@TheGamanic
Actaully I told him that macro evolution is the belief of a species evolving into another kind. I gave him his answer and now he's asking another one. No, I answered his question first so now it's time for him to answer mine. Many other atheists don't refuse to give me their best evidence, so once again you prove that you are both afraid :)
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 Good we have one definition, can we go with the other now? Finally after 45 tries?
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 "I told him that macro evolution is the belief of a species evolving into another kind"
That's not an answer if you won't define what you think a species is. What do you mean by a "species" or a "kind".
How can anyone answer a question when you won't explain what you are asking.Why are you dodging this?? You must have some idea of what you mean. Why not just say so?
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 Don't flatter yourself. They are not afraid, they just want clarification so you don't make the task of proving macroevolution impossible. So just define a species
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@TheGamanic
Bill Wiese.....Mickey Robinson.....Howard Storm.....Earthquake Kelley.....John Paul Jackson
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 You are one of the most ignorant people I have ever met. Deluded, using flawed logic with your little Pascal's Wager. I have asked almost 50 times for a simple question so we can move forward in this debate, still no answer. WHY!!! Do you not want to seek the truth And again eyewitness accounts are some of the most unreliable, especially from those wanting fame and fortune. Plus Wiese is seen as a fake anyway.
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 It is an incredibly sad state of affairs if you deny evolution which has 1000s of peer reviewed papers under its belt whilst you believe flimsy eyewitness accounts from people wanting to make money and fame from their "experiences". I'm sure there are people in all religion who have seen their respective heaven, hell or underworld. The mind can create marvelous, vivd experiences that can appear real but in fact hallucinations.
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 Again, does the fact that someone says that he has been abducted by aliens make it real? If you believe everything you hear that is an incredibly low standard of evidence and could have you believing any number of psycho claims. These people like Wiese, Keeley are playing straight into your fears of a heaven and hell you have been brought up to believe in, you are falling for the conmen hook, line and sinker.
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@TheGamanic
Actually there are many other atheists that answer my question without me having to tell them what a species is, therefore there is no excuse. You are just too scared to answer because you have zero evidence.
Bill Wiese.....Mickey Robinson.....Earthquake Kelley.....Howard Storm.....John Paul Jackson--proof heaven and hell are real.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 That is probably why you think you have won all your debates against them then, because they provide evidence which by any standard would go through and be counted as reliable, and you just change the goalposts to make giving evidence for macroevolution impossible. To make it a falsifiable claim, we need to establish the parameters, starting with a definition of "species", which I have asked for 51 times
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@TheGamanic
No other atheist has ever asked me to tell them what a species is.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 Well we are the first ones. Tell us anyway
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@TheGamanic
Nah, I answered Tobytrim's question first so now it's his turn to answer mine. If he doesn't answer mine then he will prove that he has no reliable evidence. I'm just gonna keep repeating this until he answeres mine, seeing as I answered his first.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 "If he doesn't answer mine then he will prove that he has no reliable evidence."
No. It means that I want to conclude the previous point before moving on. Actually, I'm very keen to respond to all 3, or more, questions you have left hanging here.
This seems to be your pattern. You make an unsupported statement, call it evidence, or, then start to dance when you look like being called on it.
If your arguments are good, why not clarify them beyond ANY doubt?
Tobytrim 10 months ago
@TheGamanic
Oh, one more thing, Bill Wiese use to be an estate agent. He already had lots of money before he wrote his book. Bill Wiesehas studied the Bible for years. He knows that telling lies is a sin that will send a person to hell if not repented of. He has absolutely no reason to tell lies to make money because he already had lots of money beforehand. Wake up before it's too late.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 If he is has studied the Bible, how come on a Christian website I went which went through some of his claims it said that Wiese had no scriptual support? And just because you had some money before doesn't mean you can't be hungry for more fame and more money. And what if you are wrong and are instead consigned to a life flitting beside the shores of the River Styx? Wake up from your fantasy world
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@TheGamanic
Because there are some Christians who don't believe in hell. There are other websites from Christians who do support what Bill Wiese says. I'm guessing you went looking for the websites that did not agree with him? If Bill Wiese made the whole thing up then he is either brave or stupid because he knows that telling lies will send him to hell. And there are many other people who have reported on hell, not just Bill Wiese.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 No, they believe in hell. They just think he is a lunatic. And as a matter of fact, I just put in Bill Wiese into google, and got that. Wiese is not brave or stupid; it is possible he was hallucinating and actually thought these things were happening whilst they actually weren't. That wouldn't be lying but it would the events untrue. Or he is lying and instead just wants to make as much money, fame as possible
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@TheGamanic
Like I said, there are many others who give their testimony of heaven and hell. If you want to believe that it was all in their head then believe what you want. When you die you will leave your body whether you believe it or not, there will be no stopping it. And without Jesus Christ you will go to a horrible hell without any hope of salvation. You will regret it for eternity. Your choice.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 Pascal's Wager, you retard, such a flawed argument, and if you think that is the best way to live your life, on a lie, then be my guest but it isn't for me. Jesus sounds like a right bastard for creating hell for people, people who use logic to realise that god is imaginary
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@TheGamanic
Pascal Wager was far more intelligent than me and you, and if you die without Jesus Christ you will regret it for eternity. Hell is more horrible than what our minds are able to conceive. But if believing the lie of evolution will make you happy in this very short life then enjoy it while it lasts because those who live a sinful life will be in for a rude awakening when they leave this life. Wake up, accept Jesus Christ, and get saved.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 I don't see how his intelligence makes up for the fact that it is a flawed argument. And to see if evolution is a lie like you say it is, define species and kind for the 52nd time! All you are doing is being a hypocrite. You need to clarify the argument for it to make any sense whatsoever. That's what they do in science (somehing you clearly have no grasp of)
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@TheGamanic
Macro evolution is not science, it is science-fiction.
Look up Earthquake Kelley.....Bill Wiese.....Mickey Robinson.....Howard Storm
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 The th