evolution rebuttal

[cslewislover]

That is really cool! I like that one person's comment (something like): "I'm glad to have this fungus among us." lol

[zoegirl]

I found this article and immediately thought of this website.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/ ... -fuel.html

A newfound fungus living in rainforest trees makes biofuel more efficiently than any other known method, researchers say. In fact, it's so good at turning plant matter into fuel that researchers say their discovery calls into question the whole theory of how crude oil was made by nature in the first place.

Now I know that this doesn't prove creation theory, but it does support it in that crude oil can be produced in a much shorter amount of time as opposed to millions of years. However, more importantly, it is a fine example of a well established scientific theory being proven wrong.

harth,

there is no scientist in the world who doubts that theories can be overthrown. We see plenty of hypothesis that are proven wrong. Most hypothesis are rejected. What they doubt is that the wealth of evidence for an old earth will ever be overthrown.

[cfldsl]

I. Reply to argument issues

In response to criticism regarding failure to address the evolutionist "model", cfldsl wrote:
I had the inherent notion that anything pertinent to a truly academic or intellectual debate involving opposing viewpoints would, of necessity, require a level playing field; neither side could be allowed to enjoy any artificial advantage. The following quotations expressed this equality exactly:

"The rules of logic and science indicate that there must be some kind of basis [either in substance or in thought] for an assertion or else it must be denied. An assertion, without evidence, is not accepted as true. That is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought is. Critical thought means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up. And without critical thought, logic and science are abandoned, and this is the only kind of productive thought humanity has ever come up with."

"[Secondly,] a person who rejects an assertion does not need to provide any justification for it. The evidence has to be provided by the party making the assertion. The person rejecting the assertion needs to provide nothing at all." [Emphasis in original]
Link: http://www.graveyardofthegods.net/artic ... ative.html

II. Reply to Scripture issues
cfldsl wrote:

Normally the evolutionist's task is to persuasively argue that this miraculous event of creation was a complete and total accident. Because this event has not yet been attended by suitable scientific verification, the event itself, and other such related theorizations, extrapolations, and fanciful meanderings of the mind, are not science.

zoegirl wrote:

No, I would clarify this. It is good observations, unsupported extrapolations. There are interesting and intriguing chemistry that had shown some evidence for self-assembly of molecules that can then be their own template to copy themselves. Have they been able to observe the self-generation of life? No.

But here is an interesting question: Suppose tomorrow, they do, suppose in 5 years, they do. Would this rock your faith? In other words, observing something happening "naturally" does not mean that God was not involved. Nor does it mean that God could not have orchestrated it.

I would not expect any of man's truthful exploits, experiments, or efforts to contradict or negate anything in the Scripture. God is not surprised by the doings of man. The Scripture contains all the information that we must have and nothing of mis- or disinformation; it is completely truthful.

[Genesis 1:21] "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind; and God saw that it was good. [v 22] And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the water in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. [v 23] And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. [v 24] And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. [v 25] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

[Genesis 2:1] "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. [v 2] And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. [v 3] And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. [v 4] These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the heavens,..."

[Exodus 20:11] "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

These Scriptures above have satisfied me that God created every living thing at one time; I do not believe that anything "evolved" after God finished with Creation. The Scripture below is the reason that the exploits of man referenced above were specified as "truthful".

[Genesis 6:5] "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

III. Purpose of writing

I had hoped to add Christian weight in the balance of evolution/creation.

Because theists [and Christians] readily acknowledge that their belief is accepted on their faith [which is suitably defined as "a firm belief and reliance upon ideas, doctrines, concepts, etc., for which no proof is available or required"] in Biblical scriptures, there is nothing to prove, or provable, from the theist position. But the evolutionist's position is exactly identical; it rests on faith because there is no proof [which in this case, means "proof according to the scientific method"] which has been offered and accepted as valid. It is true that theists cannot prove their own position, nor can they disprove the evolutionist position; identically, it is true that the evolutionists cannot prove their own position, nor can they disprove the theist position. Now this would result in an impasse were it not for at least one further fact: The evolutionist position is that evolution and an evolutionistic origin of life are scientifically proven, or provable.

Christians and all other theistic believers can raise the cry for the scientific proof to be brought forward and accounted. *Opinions and beliefs of "scientists" are of no value; proof must be verifiable and reproducible. Of course, this proof is as unicorns are. Once these "scientists" come to acknowledge that their belief is not based on proof, but rather, faith, there will exist insufficient reason to continue to beleaguer young minds with the "science of evolution".

*Lest this seem a little extreme, please remember that these "scientists" and teachers have gone about to intentionally perpetrate falsehood; and that being for the duration of several lifetimes. No pleadings for special consideration in regard to scientific method are appropriate; remember Who it is that musters to Untruth.

IIII. Dessert

zoegirl wrote:

And a scientist would say....ok, we're working on it. It doesn't throw a scientist when we don't know everything. And I worry that your rebuttal come perilously close to "God of the Gaps". What I hear from you is "they can't show me now, so that shows that it couldn't have happened that way, therefore I know that God had to be involved in this."

So what happens if in five years they do show that a very basic cell can be recreated? By OUR very own rules, we have given them their argument. "We have shown that it can happen this way, you said it couldn't".

Evolutionism:
1. If life were to come to pass, then it would be a completely naturalistic process without any elements of plan, design, oversight, or control of components and/or conditions.
2. Life came to pass.
3. Therefore life came to pass through a completely naturalistic process without any elements of plan, design, oversight, or control of components and/or conditions.

Suppose that scientists were able to produce some living material through such or similar intellectual facilitation: Such a feat would disprove step 1 above; it would in fact prove the case for creation. Those scientists involved in such pursuits are certainly aware of this. Submitted for your consideration: All this laboratory research is just a strategy to enable the teaching of evolution by claiming it is science as long as possible--perhaps even several more lifetimes.

Thank you.

cfldsl

[zoegirl]

To your point regarding scripture.

Noen of us here reject scripture. We hold that the literal Hebrew menaing IS for lond periods of time. Therefore we hold scritpure to be true and God-breathed. You are using an English translation that is simply on of the menaings of the word Yom.

We hold that God's creation is a trustworthy testimony to Him and His works just as HIs scripture. IF they are seemingly contradictory it must be in our understanding of one of them. Either our understanidng of scripture or our understanding of creation. We see the mountains of evidence for an old universe and we see a Hebrew word that is often used to denote periods of time.

[tsellisjr]

In the beginning, the earth was without form, and void. There was not life; there was not death. There was not reasonable expectation of life; hence, there was not reasonable expectation of death. And it came to pass in the process of time that life was created. But there was still not reasonable expectation of death. But this miraculous creation of life came with a complete and completely functional reproductive system. Thus this living thing was born with the solution to a problem which did not yet exist; hence, such a solution could not have been formed through experience. The prior provision for a problem is called a plan. The theory of evolution utterly denies the presence of any intelligent oversight or control; thus, there could be no plan. Because two contrary propositions cannot both be true at the same time, these last three sentences form a logical contradiction; this is called a fallacy. It is left for the evolutionists to conjure yet another “scientific” explanation which invariably contains much explanation and little science.

Your "rebuttal" has little to do with evolutionary science past the subject header and clearly unable to differentiate between Exogenesis and Evolution.

Evolution has nothing to do with the start of life, but rather how it has developed over time and your assertion that Evolutionary Science states that "molecular evolution" and "adaptation" as is just a series of mutations which are a trite and pointless as your own argument is laughable.

Adaptation is a natural response to changes in the natural habitat of a species in which well.."they adapt" so that they remain in accord with their own localized ecosystem. And since such changes are gradual changes (e.g. 1 or 2 degree flux in temperature or flux in rainfall which take place in the natural span of a human life) they're not often observed unless we're talking rapid adaptation where one or several species numbers dwindle and extinction is a possible threat resulting from the introduction of a species which could not have entered their habitat through natural means (e.g. exotic pet owners releasing their pets or pests stowing on a cargo vessel.) or man-made pollutants.

So please cease your absurd and unfounded arguments against scientific theories which have been studied, scrutinized, applied and proven.

If you are looking to mount some kind of academic defense of your beliefs and the existence of a God, then stop trying to erase that which is proven or piggy-back mythology to matter to sell as fact. Your arguments should begin with those 0.0009% occurances found in natural law & functions (Such as the rapid adaptation scenarios I just presented.) and this has been one of the crux concepts of Christian Dogma where upon it is stated that your Christian God doesn't suspend nature to intervene in Earthly affairs, but rather manipulates nature.

With High Regards,
Dr. T.S. Ellis Jr. (Champion of all Atheists)

P.S. Please forgive any typos. I hate proof reading.

[Cross.eyed]

Evolution has nothing to do with the start of life, but rather how it has developed over time and your assertion that Evolutionary Science states that "molecular evolution" and "adaptation" as is just a series of mutations which are a trite and pointless as your own argument is laughable.

This is quite rude of you especially for a first post.
If evolution is true, then the origins must be postulated at the very least.

So please cease your absurd and unfounded arguments against scientific theories which have been studied, scrutinized, applied and proven.

Care to give some examples of proof?
Care to show examples of decent mannerism??

With High Regards,
Dr. T.S. Ellis Jr. (Champion of all Atheists)

High regards to what? Yourself?
BTW; How does one become champion of ALL Atheists? I'm thinking it's probably by self appointment.

[tsellisjr]

Evolution has nothing to do with the start of life, but rather how it has developed over time and your assertion that Evolutionary Science states that "molecular evolution" and "adaptation" as is just a series of mutations which are a trite and pointless as your own argument is laughable.

1) This is quite rude of you especially for a first post.
If evolution is true, then the origins must be postulated at the very least.

So please cease your absurd and unfounded arguments against scientific theories which have been studied, scrutinized, applied and proven.

Care to give some examples of proof?
Care to show examples of decent mannerism??

With High Regards,
Dr. T.S. Ellis Jr. (Champion of all Atheists)

3) High regards to what? Yourself?
BTW; How does one become champion of ALL Atheists? I'm thinking it's probably by self appointment.

1) What's rude? Pointing out that he was expounding misinformation?

2) Sure. I'll give you two examples right now..

Barbourula kalimantanensis is a frog located in Singapore that has evolved to a lungless species which now breathes through it's skin, due to drastic alterations of it's habitat caused by the progressive development of humans in that region.

Laupala and Prolaupala crickets which are swordtail crickets native to Hawaii which have had to rapidly evolve muted methods of attracting mates ever since the appearance of a parasitic fly which preyed on these crickets by locating them through their chirping.

I'm sorry that that you see Evolutionary science as some cryptid-epithetical conspiracy against your religious beliefs, but the fact of the matter is that evolution has led to a renaissance in the vast majority of scientific fields and sub-fields, with medicine being the one field in which Evolutionary Sciences has had the greatest effects on our society. A great example of this is (scid) severe combined immunodeficiency which was a certain death sentence to infants diagnosed with SCID, until the development of genetic treatments which were born directly from the science of Evolution.

You shouldn't feel that Evolution is some attack on your beliefs, because science and the growth of human knowledge is advocated throughout your Bible and this is especially true with medicine with the most prominent of which being the parable of the Good Samaritan.

3) It's just a general and my most regularly used salutation.

BTW: In the present venue it would have to be considered self appointed, unless there are patrons of this board who are also patrons of other discussion forums in which I participate and have reviewed my resume. But in truth, I have far greater resources in discussions &/or debates on religion/science than most Atheists since my Ph.D. is in Theology with my emphasis being in the sub-fields of Theomatics, Theological Forensics, Theological Linguistics, Theological Cryptography, Gematria and Isopsephy.

Still I do try to make people aware that my Atheist stance has nothing to do with any information, research data, or discovery of anykind related to my field, but rather personal experience.

With High Regards....

[zoegirl]

COuld you provide some links to those exmaples. I am just curious....wan't aware of those examples.

Thanks

[Byblos]

Evolution has nothing to do with the start of life, but rather how it has developed over time and your assertion that Evolutionary Science states that "molecular evolution" and "adaptation" as is just a series of mutations which are a trite and pointless as your own argument is laughable.

1) This is quite rude of you especially for a first post.
If evolution is true, then the origins must be postulated at the very least.

So please cease your absurd and unfounded arguments against scientific theories which have been studied, scrutinized, applied and proven.

Care to give some examples of proof?
Care to show examples of decent mannerism??

With High Regards,
Dr. T.S. Ellis Jr. (Champion of all Atheists)

3) High regards to what? Yourself?
BTW; How does one become champion of ALL Atheists? I'm thinking it's probably by self appointment.

1) What's rude? Pointing out that he was expounding misinformation?

2) Sure. I'll give you two examples right now..

Barbourula kalimantanensis is a frog located in Singapore that has evolved to a lungless species which now breathes through it's skin, due to drastic alterations of it's habitat caused by the progressive development of humans in that region.

Laupala and Prolaupala crickets which are swordtail crickets native to Hawaii which have had to rapidly evolve muted methods of attracting mates ever since the appearance of a parasitic fly which preyed on these crickets by locating them through their chirping.

I'm sorry that that you see Evolutionary science as some cryptid-epithetical conspiracy against your religious beliefs, but the fact of the matter is that evolution has led to a renaissance in the vast majority of scientific fields and sub-fields, with medicine being the one field in which Evolutionary Sciences has had the greatest effects on our society. A great example of this is (scid) severe combined immunodeficiency which was a certain death sentence to infants diagnosed with SCID, until the development of genetic treatments which were born directly from the science of Evolution.

You shouldn't feel that Evolution is some attack on your beliefs, because science and the growth of human knowledge is advocated throughout your Bible and this is especially true with medicine with the most prominent of which being the parable of the Good Samaritan.

3) It's just a general and my most regularly used salutation.

BTW: In the present venue it would have to be considered self appointed, unless there are patrons of this board who are also patrons of other discussion forums in which I participate and have reviewed my resume. But in truth, I have far greater resources in discussions &/or debates on religion/science than most Atheists since my Ph.D. is in Theology with my emphasis being in the sub-fields of Theomatics, Theological Forensics, Theological Linguistics, Theological Cryptography, Gematria and Isopsephy.

Still I do try to make people aware that my Atheist stance has nothing to do with any information, research data, or discovery of anykind related to my field, but rather personal experience.

With High Regards....

Hi tsellisjr and welcome to the board, although personally I don't think you'll be here much longer. Nothing personal, really. It's just that this board has a specific purpose, one for Christians and sincere seekers. Somehow I do not think either is a description that fits you (again, no disrespect intended).

Contrary to the title of the thread, this board is not against evolution in the least. Most of us are old earth (progressive) creationists and some are theistic evolutionists so if you have the misconception that we're against evolution, we're not. What we ARE against is chance creation, pure and simple. Please forgive the expression but if you're not prepared to prove chance creation (using the very same scientific methods you hold to other, more definable experiments) then all your examples and PHDs do mean diddly squat here.

And, of course, I submit to you that unless and until you are able to come up with such proof, that you are the champion of nothing because athiesm does not exist as the most you can say is that you are the confused champion of agnosticism, but that's only if you want to be intellectually honest. Do you?

And finally, if your purpose for being on this site does not fit the confines of the board's purpose as defined by its owner, then I must ask you why are you here? I'm sure a person of your education, stature, and resources can find a better suited site for debating and for self-declaring whatever title you deem appropriate.

Byblos,

Moderator.

[godslanguage]

Barbourula kalimantanensis is a frog located in Singapore that has evolved to a lungless species which now breathes through it's skin, due to drastic alterations of it's habitat caused by the progressive development of humans in that region.

Evolved into a lungless species? That sounds a whole lot like devolution, thats correct becuase Darwinian evolution is completely good at doing that. Coincidentally, all frogs breathe through their skin.

[Cross.eyed]

Evolution has nothing to do with the start of life, but rather how it has developed over time and your assertion that Evolutionary Science states that "molecular evolution" and "adaptation" as is just a series of mutations which are a trite and pointless as your own argument is laughable.

1) This is quite rude of you especially for a first post.
If evolution is true, then the origins must be postulated at the very least.

So please cease your absurd and unfounded arguments against scientific theories which have been studied, scrutinized, applied and proven.

Care to give some examples of proof?
Care to show examples of decent mannerism??

With High Regards,
Dr. T.S. Ellis Jr. (Champion of all Atheists)

3) High regards to what? Yourself?
BTW; How does one become champion of ALL Atheists? I'm thinking it's probably by self appointment.

1) What's rude? Pointing out that he was expounding misinformation?

No. I would expect anyone to rectify a false argument.
It is the use of the words absurd and unfounded regarding theories, your statement came across as condescending, but maybe I was reading in to your post more than I should have and if that be the case, I apologize.

Laupala and Prolaupala crickets which are swordtail crickets native to Hawaii which have had to rapidly evolve muted methods of attracting mates ever since the appearance of a parasitic fly which preyed on these crickets by locating them through their chirping.

This rings more to adaptation or microevolution which is common. I get tired of hearing evolution proper or DE as being the answer for everything that has happened.

I'm sorry that that you see Evolutionary science as some cryptid-epithetical conspiracy against your religious beliefs, but the fact of the matter is that evolution has led to a renaissance in the vast majority of scientific fields and sub-fields, with medicine being the one field in which Evolutionary Sciences has had the greatest effects on our society. A great example of this is (scid) severe combined immunodeficiency which was a certain death sentence to infants diagnosed with SCID, until the development of genetic treatments which were born directly from the science of Evolution.

I have no problem with evolution, if evolution is true (noone has proven it yet) then GOD made evolution.

You shouldn't feel that Evolution is some attack on your beliefs, because science and the growth of human knowledge is advocated throughout your Bible and this is especially true with medicine with the most prominent of which being the parable of the Good Samaritan.

I reread my post and I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. There have been countless attacks on Christianity, but used in a scientific theory, evolution is not one of them unless taken out of context.
How did you get that the parable has to do with science?

3) It's just a general and my most regularly used salutation.

After reading your post it came across as "poking fun" at us. You seemed as though you regard all Christians as being uneducated.

Still I do try to make people aware that my Atheist stance has nothing to do with any information, research data, or discovery of anykind related to my field, but rather personal experience.

It is amazing you can be unbiased given your faith in evolution seemingly being the reason for your atheism.

[tsellisjr]

Evolution has nothing to do with the start of life, but rather how it has developed over time and your assertion that Evolutionary Science states that "molecular evolution" and "adaptation" as is just a series of mutations which are a trite and pointless as your own argument is laughable.

1) This is quite rude of you especially for a first post.
If evolution is true, then the origins must be postulated at the very least.

So please cease your absurd and unfounded arguments against scientific theories which have been studied, scrutinized, applied and proven.

Care to give some examples of proof?
Care to show examples of decent mannerism??

With High Regards,
Dr. T.S. Ellis Jr. (Champion of all Atheists)

3) High regards to what? Yourself?
BTW; How does one become champion of ALL Atheists? I'm thinking it's probably by self appointment.

1) What's rude? Pointing out that he was expounding misinformation?

2) Sure. I'll give you two examples right now..

Barbourula kalimantanensis is a frog located in Singapore that has evolved to a lungless species which now breathes through it's skin, due to drastic alterations of it's habitat caused by the progressive development of humans in that region.

Laupala and Prolaupala crickets which are swordtail crickets native to Hawaii which have had to rapidly evolve muted methods of attracting mates ever since the appearance of a parasitic fly which preyed on these crickets by locating them through their chirping.

I'm sorry that that you see Evolutionary science as some cryptid-epithetical conspiracy against your religious beliefs, but the fact of the matter is that evolution has led to a renaissance in the vast majority of scientific fields and sub-fields, with medicine being the one field in which Evolutionary Sciences has had the greatest effects on our society. A great example of this is (scid) severe combined immunodeficiency which was a certain death sentence to infants diagnosed with SCID, until the development of genetic treatments which were born directly from the science of Evolution.

You shouldn't feel that Evolution is some attack on your beliefs, because science and the growth of human knowledge is advocated throughout your Bible and this is especially true with medicine with the most prominent of which being the parable of the Good Samaritan.

3) It's just a general and my most regularly used salutation.

BTW: In the present venue it would have to be considered self appointed, unless there are patrons of this board who are also patrons of other discussion forums in which I participate and have reviewed my resume. But in truth, I have far greater resources in discussions &/or debates on religion/science than most Atheists since my Ph.D. is in Theology with my emphasis being in the sub-fields of Theomatics, Theological Forensics, Theological Linguistics, Theological Cryptography, Gematria and Isopsephy.

Still I do try to make people aware that my Atheist stance has nothing to do with any information, research data, or discovery of anykind related to my field, but rather personal experience.

With High Regards....

Hi tsellisjr and welcome to the board, although personally I don't think you'll be here much longer. Nothing personal, really. It's just that this board has a specific purpose, one for Christians and sincere seekers. Somehow I do not think either is a description that fits you (again, no disrespect intended).

Contrary to the title of the thread, this board is not against evolution in the least. Most of us are old earth (progressive) creationists and some are theistic evolutionists so if you have the misconception that we're against evolution, we're not. What we ARE against is chance creation, pure and simple. Please forgive the expression but if you're not prepared to prove chance creation (using the very same scientific methods you hold to other, more definable experiments) then all your examples and PHDs do mean diddly squat here.

And, of course, I submit to you that unless and until you are able to come up with such proof, that you are the champion of nothing because athiesm does not exist as the most you can say is that you are the confused champion of agnosticism, but that's only if you want to be intellectually honest. Do you?

And finally, if your purpose for being on this site does not fit the confines of the board's purpose as defined by its owner, then I must ask you why are you here? I'm sure a person of your education, stature, and resources can find a better suited site for debating and for self-declaring whatever title you deem appropriate.

Byblos,

Moderator.

Thank you for your welcome and allow me to respond to your predications of my future attendence by saying that my participation in discussions will certainly be limited; not because of any philosophical prejudice or xenophobic stigmas towards the religious, but rather from sparable time.

I've read through much of the information, theorums, vitae, and diatribes provided in the main page, so I am aware of the sites position on evolution and reiterate that my conflict was with the misguided informations expounded by the author of this thread. Further more the fundamentals of Molecular Evolution does not advocate chance creation or creation in general, but rather reaction.

Now as far as your assertion that no one person can be an "Atheist" but rather, an "Agnostic" Merriam Webster defines "Atheism" as being "One who believes that there is no deity.." and due to the great amount of dedication and emotions invested by both Theist & Atheist like, the crux term "believes" is overlooked and it's key function in stating that no certainty at this time exists.

While "Agnosticism" is defined as being " person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god". So you're wrong... plain and simple.

Good Try..

With High Regards..

[tsellisjr]

Barbourula kalimantanensis is a frog located in Singapore that has evolved to a lungless species which now breathes through it's skin, due to drastic alterations of it's habitat caused by the progressive development of humans in that region.

Evolved into a lungless species? That sounds a whole lot like devolution, thats correct becuase Darwinian evolution is completely good at doing that. Coincidentally, all frogs breathe through their skin.

Adaptation is a reaction to changes in a species natural habitat which threatens the survival of the species in it's present form. Whether it gains or loses a specific organ is irrelevant.

[tsellisjr]

Evolution has nothing to do with the start of life, but rather how it has developed over time and your assertion that Evolutionary Science states that "molecular evolution" and "adaptation" as is just a series of mutations which are a trite and pointless as your own argument is laughable.

1) This is quite rude of you especially for a first post.
If evolution is true, then the origins must be postulated at the very least.

So please cease your absurd and unfounded arguments against scientific theories which have been studied, scrutinized, applied and proven.

Care to give some examples of proof?
Care to show examples of decent mannerism??

With High Regards,
Dr. T.S. Ellis Jr. (Champion of all Atheists)

3) High regards to what? Yourself?
BTW; How does one become champion of ALL Atheists? I'm thinking it's probably by self appointment.

1) What's rude? Pointing out that he was expounding misinformation?

No. I would expect anyone to rectify a false argument.
It is the use of the words absurd and unfounded regarding theories, your statement came across as condescending, but maybe I was reading in to your post more than I should have and if that be the case, I apologize.

Laupala and Prolaupala crickets which are swordtail crickets native to Hawaii which have had to rapidly evolve muted methods of attracting mates ever since the appearance of a parasitic fly which preyed on these crickets by locating them through their chirping.

This rings more to adaptation or microevolution which is common. I get tired of hearing evolution proper or DE as being the answer for everything that has happened.

I'm sorry that that you see Evolutionary science as some cryptid-epithetical conspiracy against your religious beliefs, but the fact of the matter is that evolution has led to a renaissance in the vast majority of scientific fields and sub-fields, with medicine being the one field in which Evolutionary Sciences has had the greatest effects on our society. A great example of this is (scid) severe combined immunodeficiency which was a certain death sentence to infants diagnosed with SCID, until the development of genetic treatments which were born directly from the science of Evolution.

I have no problem with evolution, if evolution is true (noone has proven it yet) then GOD made evolution.

You shouldn't feel that Evolution is some attack on your beliefs, because science and the growth of human knowledge is advocated throughout your Bible and this is especially true with medicine with the most prominent of which being the parable of the Good Samaritan.

I reread my post and I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. There have been countless attacks on Christianity, but used in a scientific theory, evolution is not one of them unless taken out of context.
How did you get that the parable has to do with science?

3) It's just a general and my most regularly used salutation.

After reading your post it came across as "poking fun" at us. You seemed as though you regard all Christians as being uneducated.

Still I do try to make people aware that my Atheist stance has nothing to do with any information, research data, or discovery of anykind related to my field, but rather personal experience.

It is amazing you can be unbiased given your faith in evolution seemingly being the reason for your atheism.

1) No apology needed, the misconception of condescending intent is often perpetuated by my lack of consideration given towards the structure, content, and the absence of certain indicators such as tone of voice, eye contact, and gesturing which broadcast intent in face to face conversations.

2) It's quite possible that Evolution bears the markings of intentional design, because there is nothing random about it's function and for anyone to suggest otherwise is both ignorant and absurd. The meaningful conflict between Theist/Atheist & Religion/Science is introduced when we consider origins and creations. While the trite conflict which seems to prevent many Theists from investing into the Science of Evolution is the misconception that the theory states that humans come from apes, when the truth is it only states that we humans share a common ancestor with lesser hominids.

When looking for scientific validation for religion, you must look towards natural laws which establish order, precendence, and sequential function; all of which is found within the Evolutionary Sciences and it's also found to a certain extent within the nucleosynthesis of another theory deemed contraversal by Theists (ie The Big Bang Theory.) Order can be found throughout our the Earth, under it's atmosphere and in our own solar system, but past that point we know our universe seems to lack order and it's this which makes the belief in God hard for so many.

3) A physician is a scientist. Also to step away from the parable itself and wander into other gospels for Biblical advocation, the Hebrew and Galilean Aramaic term for "Healer" is the same term used for Physician. As a matter of fact Jesus was considered a Physician, Scientist, and Scholar by many who did not invest in the belief that he was the Messiah prophecied in the Tanakh.

While it's presently being disputed as to whether or not there was a single Jesus or the New Covenant teachings is a collection of events, colmanation of the doctrines of Jesus of Nazareth along with the 11 messiac predessors or Jesus of Nazareth existed at all due to the absence of confirmed historical documentation.. that argument will likely come to an end sometime over the next two years due to two recently discovered works which are presently in the process of being authenticated by the Talbot Institute.

Also there always will be attacks on Christianity from the "Atheist/Scientific" Perspective and vice versa, but I've come to realize that while there are some cases in which the animosity over the treacherous acts of men and women under the banner is justifiable.. more often than not such attacks are the result of a personal grudge held by the leading antagonist of past campaigns.

4) I determine meritable judgements individually and the belief of something that is greater than ourselves is by no means "ignorant". Any greater knowledge and understanding of one subject, doesn't not negate the overall intelligence of any other person.. It only means that I'm well read and versed in that specific subject.

5) No, scientific theories, scholarly efforts, discovery of an archeaological relic or academic knowledge has nothing to do with my stance as an Atheist.

My conclusions were rooted in the tragedy of my 4 year old sons abduction and murder almost 9 years ago. This was perpetuated my service as a Marine in Liberia, the Baltic, Darfur, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria as a Marine.

I used to avoid disclosing these facts personal events which have influenced my stance; especially in a religious form since it compromised their authenticity to Christians as being a view that was formed from spite, grief, and anger, but to say it wasn't would be a lie.

With High Regards...

[cslewislover]

While it's presently being disputed as to whether or not there was a single Jesus or the New Covenant teachings is a collection of events, colmanation of the doctrines of Jesus of Nazareth along with the 11 messiac predessors or Jesus of Nazareth existed at all due to the absence of confirmed historical documentation.. that argument will likely come to an end sometime over the next two years due to two recently discovered works which are presently in the process of being authenticated by the Talbot Institute.

Well, I need to look into the Talbot Institute, but as far as historical evidence goes, Jesus of Nazareth is one of the most confirmed persons of ancient history (and I'm not totally uneducated; I have a Masters in History).

My conclusions were rooted in the tragedy of my 4 year old sons abduction and murder almost 9 years ago. This was perpetuated my service as a Marine in Liberia, the Baltic, Darfur, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria as a Marine.

I used to avoid disclosing these facts personal events which have influenced my stance; especially in a religious form since it compromised their authenticity to Christians as being a view that was formed from spite, grief, and anger, but to say it wasn't would be a lie.

With High Regards...

I don't know that your tragedy - which I'm very very sorry for - would seem to influence your stance. I mean, yes, it could. But it could also lead to the opposite stance. I think it is so incredibly easy to see all the negative and evil things in the world and conclude there is no God. It seems like 75% of what gets posted on this board is about that. There are reasons, however, why God would let things be the way they are. The biggest one is that He gave us free will, and He's sticking with His decision. I'm not going any farther here with that because there are other threads for it.

The biggest reason I believe in Christ is because I've encountered Him personally. I will pray that for you.

The reason the moderator said your stay here might be shortlived is because people who are seen as going against the board rules are banned from the site.

Vicki