Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Evolution: The Skeptics False Deity [Spirituality & Religion]

The Truth is: skeptics, not all of them, are noted for talking like they 're making this non living, non thinking, non intelligent, source of their belief as if it were a god. Evolution has no wisdom, can't be reasoned with, has no compassion or love, and has no idea that these skeptics are worshiping it like a god. Judging from what they have told me in the past, evolution is very much like the wooden and stone ‘gods’ that men make to worship, to make awful sacrifices to, to get advice from, and to get it to do things for them. They're missing one important detail. First, their ‘god’ has to be living in order to think, reason, see, hear, smell, taste, and feel. It also has to be all knowing, all wise, all powerful, and all intelligent. Evolution has none of these attributes at all. Where did evolution , random chance, and natural selection get the wisdom, the knowledge, the intelligence, and the skills to produce the universe, with its stars and planets, especially earth that has life on it, and keep it running?
It seems like all these guys know how to do is ridicule, mock, and act worse than a jackass. No wonder they lose debates left and right. They have no evidence for their belief systems which they try to make scientific hoping that their pseudo science will make Yahweh go away and make them look intelligent at the same time. I choose to pray for them since their eyes and ears are closed to the truth of Yahweh, the one true God. True, I’ve met some pretty decent skeptics who are objective and are willing to listen to what believers have to say. But, these seem to be far and few in between. The rest are a shameful lot who only degrade themselves by trying to degrade us. It’s the only vice they can use since they can’t turn the lie of evolution into truth. It’ll never happen.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Evolution is not worshiped. But then you think a lot of things are worshiped if you are using a certain definition of the term. You could say you worship gravity since you use it everyday. But that is not the definition of worship.
I think part of it is you are confusing worship with respect and trust. Humans tend to respect things that help them. Like giving medicine and teaching us about where we came from. Two things evolution does.
To you it can seem like anthropomorphization. But people that believe in evolution aren't trying to talk with it or ask it for things. It it treated like any other force of nature because it is a force of nature. And in the opinion of some they would rather have an impersonal force of nature that a petty human like God.
You have simply made it into a personal enemy because you think it opposes your ideas. But it doesn't. During Darwin's day evolution was not even questioned. Everyone knew it happened. The world was a lot more agrarian at the time after all and what farmers consistently saw was traits can be selected for. What was in question was how traits where selected for in nature without an intelligence. All the Darwin did was show that nature can select itself without needing an outside influence. And for many people that makes God seem even more powerful. That he could create a self sustaining system.
But you who don't believe in evolution believes God created a flawed system that he constantly has to intervene and fix. It puts your God in a box and limits him in what he can do. Evolution allows him to be greater and tells us the "mechanism" of the "how".
As a Christian don't you want to know how God did something, not just that he did it?
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@canusernamebemyusername [quote]As a Christian don't you want to know how God did something, not just that he did it?[/quote]

Sure I do. This is exactly why Yahweh created science in the first place.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Emosaur [quote]If your god created science why do so many scientific facts and discoveries point towards him not being real?[/quote]

Evolutionists read scientific facts and discoveries backwards instead of reading them the way they were meant to read.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 [quote]the way they were meant to read[/quote]

Do you mean in a way that allows confirmation bias?

This comment is hidden. Show Comment
@GodSpeed63 Can you explain how planets are formed then?
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 [quote]Do you mean in a way that allows confirmation bias?[/quote]

No, in a way that allows the truth to be revealed and not one's private interpretation.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@canusernamebemyusername [quote]Can you explain how planets are formed then?[/quote]

What does Genesis say?
@GodSpeed63 It says nothing about the mechanics of planet formation.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 I have told you several times that evidence doesn’t require interpretation (leading to confirmation bias)... it requires [i]explanation[/i]
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 [quote]What does Genesis say?[/quote]

I have this inescapable image of a USB cable with one end plugged into a bible and the other end plugged into where your frontal lobe used to be 😀
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 [quote]I have this inescapable image of a USB cable with one end plugged into a bible and the other end plugged into where your frontal lobe used to be[/quote]

I rest my case.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 What case are you resting?
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 [quote]What case are you resting?[/quote]

This case: It seems like all these guys know how to do is ridicule, mock, and act worse than a jackass. No wonder they lose debates left and right. They have no evidence for their belief systems which they try to make scientific hoping that their pseudo science will make Yahweh go away and make them look intelligent at the same time.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 and you have made a case for that meandering series of vague statements, have you?

Please direct me to wherever it is that you have presented such a case.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Emosaur Yup, there isn’t a single scientific fact in the bible that is either accurate, or wasn’t already known.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 [quote]and you have made a case for that meandering series of vague statements, have you?[/quote]

No. You made the case. Regardless of what you may think, they're the truth none the less.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 You make a meandering series of vague statements and then claim they’re the truth just because [i]you[/i] say they’re the truth? What astonishing arrogance!

You reserve for yourself the right to have anything you say accepted as the truth, while denying such a convenience to everyone else.

Hubristic nonsense! Who do you think you are... some sort of ayatollah?
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 Still waiting for that evolutionary evidence you keep promising and never delivering.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@hippyjoe1955 I’m still waiting for you to actually respond to the evidence I constantly show you.

Are you saying that you have now found the spine to work through it point by point?

As always, I’m more than happy to do that for you... and as always you’ll hysterically scream ‘goddidit!’ and then run away
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 You haven't shown any evidence that isn't potential evidence of ID. Care to try harder?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@hippyjoe1955 [quote]that isn't potential evidence of ID[/quote]

lol! Already trying to claim ‘goddidit’, are you?

Of course, you’ve snuck in the word ‘potential’, I see.

Nervous, are you, and already trying to give yourself an out?

Well, let’s see how you go, shall we?

_______________________________

All species carry ‘silenced’ genes… these are genes that once caused certain proteins to be produced, but now no longer function in the original manner. Such genes are called pseudogenes.

Nearly all mammals have functional genes for expressing an enzyme (L-guluno-γ-lactone oxidase) that allows the production of vitamin C, which is essential for proper metabolism.

I say ‘nearly all mammals’ because primates cannot produce their own vitamin C. In humans, there is a set of four genes that code for vitamin C production. As you may know, these genes are composed of many, many smaller units called nucleotides, so these four genes contain a very large number of such nucleotides (the human genome has 64 billion nucleotides}. The first three genes are fully functional, but the final gene in the sequence has a mutation in a single nucleotide, and this mutation prevents the sequence from completing. That’s why humans need to obtain vitamin C from their food… because the mechanism for producing it has become a pseudogene.

Across all primates (chimpanzees, bononbo, humans, and apes) not only is it the final gene in the sequence that is silenced, but within that gene the [b]same[/b] nucleotide carries the mutation that is responsible.

Now, why would this be?

1. astonishing coincidence

2. when the gods created all the species they put genetic pathways for vitamin C production into all mammals, but then inactivated a single nucleotide from among the four genes necessary for that production, inactivated the [b]same[/b] nucleotide in all cases, and did that only in primates. They obviously thought this to be a tremendous joke to play, because we carry around 2,000 such pseudogenes.

3. All mammals developed the ability to produce vitamin C, but around 40 million years ago, in the ancestor common to all primates, that ability was removed by a mutation in a single nucleotide, and the deficit was passed to all primates due to common descent during evolution.

[b]So, what’s your choice?[/b]
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 Not claiming anything except your evidence does have multiple interpretations. Unlike you I am open to alternatives. You accuse me of Goddunit. The reverse is even more true of you. according to you Godcan'tdo it because in your narrow view God doesn't exist. You remind me of the old flat earther who refuses to look at new evidence with an open mind. Oh well at least you give me a good chuckle with your nonsense.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@hippyjoe1955 [quote]multiple interpretations[/quote]

Evidence doesn’t require ‘interpretation’.

Evidence demands [b]explanation[/b].

What’s [i]your[/i] explanation for this evidence?

You’ve already run to ‘goddidit’... am I to assume you’ve chosen Option 2?