Religion & Spirituality

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 »

redredred · M

Yes but unlike your godlette, evolution actually exists and modern genetics essentially proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.

1-25 of 26

GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M

@redredred [quote]Yes but unlike your godlette, evolution actually exists and modern genetics essentially proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.[/quote]

I don't have a godlette and modern genetics do not prove evolution but creation instead.

Pikachu

@GodSpeed63

[quote]modern genetics do not prove evolution but creation instead.[/quote]

So then if i gave you an example of genetic evidence which was explained by evolution, you'd be able to provide a [i]superior[/i] explanation via creation?
Keep in mind, if you answer yes then i [i]will[/i] call you out and make you do it.

redredred · M

@GodSpeed63 Modern genetics shows that ERVs on the human genome match that of chimpanzees proving humans and chimps had a common ancestor. Modern genetics does not say a word about creation.

CharlieZ · 70-79, M

@GodSpeed63 Modern GENETICS, It PROVES creation?
Speedy, please, I beg you, post a link to a scientific paper that show this.
Not an article, not theologic related difussion, not a YouTube, yes from a source of scientific research in the terms that the scientists define Science is.

GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M

@CharlieZ [quote]Modern GENETICS, It PROVES creation? Speedy, please, I beg you, post a link to a scientific paper that show this.[/quote]

What do you think is true Charlie? If I've made a mistake, please correct me.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@redredred No genetics don't prove anything. Nice of you to show your ignorance of genes. Too Funny!!! You are a real hoot! Nice religion you got going there.

CharlieZ · 70-79, M

@GodSpeed63 Your post and assertion was about a specific something truth and, consistently, so is my question and what I asked you.
I hope that we may parsimoniusly agree on that Genetics is a branch of Biology as Biology is a branch of Science.
I hope that we do not need to redefine what Genetics is since Mendel. Fact based, detectable meassurable fact based. Or woul not be Scientific.
I hope that you recognize that specifically Modern Genetics went far deeper and beyond the only descriptive. But that it still is founded (as all Science is) in systematic research on detectable facts, being such detection done by material means.

Based on this simple but unavoidable fundations:

- I did not say that you were either wrong or right.
- I asked you to show in the terms of THAT definition of Genetics (and a modern one indeed) what researchers on Biology use to publish the basis and results of their research.
- That is, fact based scientific papers (not articles,youtubes, panphlets or other ABOUT them).
- In particular the one scientific paper (wich is the name of a specific kind of publication) that says what you said: Explicitelly that Modern Genetics (above defined one and no other) proves Creation.

Thank you, Speedy.

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@hippyjoe1955 [quote]genetics don't prove anything[/quote]

Yet on another thread you have become unresponsive when shown evidence of evolution. You seem unable to provide a clear, consistent. complete, and coherent explanation of the evidence.

All I have seen from you in light of that evidence is ‘goddidit’.

_______________________________

Just to refresh your (conveniently) selective memory...

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.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@newjaninev2 Unresponsive? I was dying from laughter at your foolishness! Tell you what you tell me how DNA began and what the difference between live DNA and dead DNA and we can start having a conversation. Until that point any DNA looks like it was designed to contain information. Information that the cell uses. Both the information and use indicates design by the way. It is one of the ways design engineers define design. It has a purpose and it performs a function. The minute you mention either of those things and especially when you put them together you are talking about a design. You left the realm of accident now it is design. The sharp edge on a flint arrowhead is the result of design not accident. Why because it serves a purpose and/or performs a function.

Pikachu

@GodSpeed63

[quote]modern genetics do not prove evolution but creation instead.[/quote]

So then if i gave you an example of genetic evidence which was explained by evolution, you'd be able to provide a superior explanation via creation?
Keep in mind, if you answer yes then i will call you out and make you do it.

LeopoldBloom · M

@hippyjoe1955 Until you can explain God's origin and the mechanism by which he created the universe, you're just talking out of your ass. You might as well answer everything with "you must never ask that question." And then burn people at the stake if they keep asking anyway.

The only way the religious "explanation" can survive is if people who question it are killed or silenced in other ways.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@LeopoldBloom Yahweh doesn't have an origin which is why we refer to Him as being Supernatural. He is beyond space and time. You are fixed in time and can't imagine Eternity or Eternal. It is beyond your ken.

LeopoldBloom · M

@hippyjoe1955 In other words, you have no fucking idea.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@LeopoldBloom Actually I do. Too bad you are the one barking in the dark again. Time is part of this creation. You simply don't have the mental capacity to grasp that concept. Kind of like a fish having no idea of dry you are immersed in time and can never imagine Anything beyond time. Oh well your loss not mine.

LeopoldBloom · M

@hippyjoe1955 You don't have the mental capacity either. You're just talking out of your ass and repeating what you heard at church because it makes you feel good. Nothing wrong with that, if it's what gets you through the night, great.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@LeopoldBloom Actually I do. The same obviously can not be said of you. your loss. I am not going to bother to describe the colour red to a man born colour blind. Have a nice flame out!

LeopoldBloom · M

@hippyjoe1955 You really shouldn't use the word "actually;" it refers to reality, which is something you've never successfully dealt with.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@LeopoldBloom Ah yes reality something you know nothing about. Too funny! you think this level of existence is all there is!!!!! What a Hoot!

LeopoldBloom · M

@hippyjoe1955 OK, then please show us evidence of some other "level of existence." Except you can't, because if you did, it would have to be on this "level of existence." So we're supposed to believe in something that by definition cannot have any evidence.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@LeopoldBloom I already told you I am not going to describe red to someone colour blind.

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@hippyjoe1955 How would you describe red to someone who [i]isn’t[/i] colour-blind?

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@newjaninev2 Quite succinctly in fact. Of course it helps when we have shared experiences. You are the blind and I the sighted. We don't have much in common when it comes to things of the eye.

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@hippyjoe1955 none of which is what I asked you

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@newjaninev2 Actually it is. Too bad you can't see it. Oh well. It is up to you to fix it not me.

Pikachu

@GodSpeed63

[quote]modern genetics do not prove evolution but creation instead.
[/quote]

So then if i gave you an example of genetic evidence which was explained by evolution, you'd be able to provide a superior explanation via creation?
Keep in mind, if you answer yes then i will call you out and make you do it.

lol why do you keep ignoring this post?😆 Put your money where your mouth is😁👍

1-25 of 26