|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Who needs mathematics when you've got fantasy and superstition?
They are sinners that can't do mathematics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
"although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened" (Romans 1:19)
This is what happens when there is a lack of teaching of the Bible. This leads to the behavior of doing what is right in their own mind. The problem is that they have a twisted idea of what is right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangled writes:
What? Since atheists don't believe in a Creator, they believe abiogenesis happened naturally. Atheism is a non-belief in god(s). It has no opinion on abiogenesis. Francis Crick - atheist - concluded life on earth began by being "seeded" by visiting aliens. One absurd atheist superstition begets more absurd atheist superstition ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
​ The vast majority of evolutionary biologists are atheists.Tangled writes:
"According to a 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), nearly 95% of NAS biologists identify themselves as either atheists or agnostics, a percentage of unbelief far higher than in any other scientific discipline ... Would you care to provide your evidence for that claim please. Similarly, according to a 2003 Cornell survey of leading scientists in the field of evolution, 87% deny existence of God, 88% disbelieve in life after death"What are the Religious Views of Leading Scientists Who Support Evolution? | Discovery Institute
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Another fine example of the contributions atheist scientists have made to the field science-fiction. Don't forget panspermia. I think someone must have watched too many episodes of Star Trek.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Funny. It is scientific training by Marvel Comics. It gives a whole new meaning to the "Web of Science". Pseudo-science has provided so much entertainment, so we owe atheist scientists a great debt of gratitude.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Some discoverers of scientific and medical breakthroughs were initially considered fools and quacks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
I'm looking forward to the adventures of their new super-hero ... UCD-man. (Universal Common Descent)
It is scientific training by Marvel Comics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Correct. Our latest comic-book hero, UCD-man, started life as a bacterium, but he can transform (evolve) into different creatures, depending on whatever environmental conditions he finds himself in. For example, sometimes he's a vegetable; sometimes he's a lobster; sometimes he's a human. He can do this bcoz vegetables, lobsters and humans are cousins and all evolved from a common ancestor.
Sure, they can get an out of work Transformer to play the role. He turns into whatever the environmental conditions require.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
[qs=Kleinman]AZPaul3 is afraid for reader to read these papers because they burst his mathematically irrational belief system.]/qs]
Atheists like APauling are afraid of the light. Have pity on him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Atheists like APauling are afraid of the light. Have pity on him.
AZPaul3 is afraid for reader to read these papers because they burst his mathematically irrational belief system.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangled writes:
No, it isn't. Life cannot just pop in existence by chance - not on this planet, nor on any other planet. Life has to be divinely created. Even the village-idiot knows that.
Life being seeded here from other parts of the galaxy is one possibility
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangled writes:
Biology for space-cadets. To get from "amino acids" to a living, reproducing organism you need to pull out two items from your atheist bag of tricks - delusion and superstition.
Amino acids have been found in asteroids and asteroids have crashed into our planet for billions of years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangled writes:
Not at all ... God can create life wherever he likes.
It would not resolve how life came about elsewhere in the galaxy but it would cause religionists like you some problems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
[qs=There is a reason why Crick brought up the notion of panspermia. When he realized what the structure of DNA is, there is no rational way to explain the evolution of such a molecule.[/qs]
Crick would rather make a fool of himself by believing in the superstitious nonsense of panspermia than believe in a Creator. It never ceases to amaze how highly intelligent atheists can be so stupid when it comes to facing reality.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024