RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

[abelcainsbrother]

Catholic or Protestant I have already refuted evolution.

Such a shame you didn't get a Nobel for it.

And everybody else has refuted the Gap Theory.

You really think so? I don't see how. I mean I know they don't believe it,but refuted it?

[RickD]

Catholic or Protestant I have already refuted evolution.

Such a shame you didn't get a Nobel for it.

And everybody else has refuted the Gap Theory.

You really think so? I don't see how. I mean I know they don't believe it,but refuted it?

You haven't disproven Evolution.

Refuted means to have proven wrong. You certainly haven't proven evolution wrong. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

[abelcainsbrother]

Catholic or Protestant I have already refuted evolution.

Such a shame you didn't get a Nobel for it.

And everybody else has refuted the Gap Theory.

You really think so? I don't see how. I mean I know they don't believe it,but refuted it?

You haven't disproven Evolution.

Refuted means to have proven wrong. You certainly haven't proven evolution wrong. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm talking about refuting it. I already know refuting it doesn't mean its going to be dropped anytime soon. All I've been trying to do is explain and show why I reject evolution. I have not been refuted on any of my points,everything thing that was brought up concerning evolution I showed how I was right.It is just proving normal variation amongst a population and using this for evidence life evolves. If normal variation in reproduction is evolution,I don't see how,and it is'nt,there is much more to evolution than just proving that.

It is very tricky what they are doing to push evolution. It can be hard to break it down but I try to simplify it and make it easier to see what they are doing. It used to be that when I debated evolution they would post evidence for evolution for you and then I could explain how the evidence does not back up what they are saying and I could show how it backs up the reasons why I say it is only demonstrating normal variation amongst a population and I could point out this is not evidence life evolves.

I think the key to rejecting evolution is realizing that it is not so important that life cannot breed like evolutionists believe because it does not lead to evolution at all,like they think,it still produces normal variation amongst a population based on what they can breed with,so that whether they can or cannot breed you still only get normal variation amongst a population and so this is what I mean when I say that they are using normal variation amongst a population for evidence life evolves. And this is not evidence life evolves.

You cannot use for evidence life evolves the very same thing Charles Darwin used to convince people his theory has merit and that is variation with his finches. You cannot use variation 150 years later and claim life evolves and yet this is exactly what they are doing,while making up myths about not being able to breed and what it leads to.

Here is a quote from Charles Darwin when he was trying to convince people that his theory had merit: "If,then,animals and plants do vary,let it be ever so slightly,why should not variations or individual differences,which are in anyway beneficial,be preserved and accumulated through natural selection?". So this is why evolutionists cannot use normal variation amongst a population for evidence life evolves,yet this is exactly what evolutionists are doing for evidence life evolves. This is why both micro-evolution and macro-evolution are myths because both only prove normal variation amongst a population.

If life does evolve like evolutionists believe? Then by the scientific method they should have produced evidence confirming Charles Darwin correct,but instead they are still using the same evidence Charles Darwin gave for evidence to convince people his theory had merit.It is assuming life evolves based on the very same presuppositions of Darwin based on variation. So that science has not even come close to demonstrating life indeed does evolve.

This is just normal reproduction,really,when you break it all down so that evolutionists are claiming life evolves based on just reproduction. I know it is shocking,but true nonetheless.

[RickD]

Such a shame you didn't get a Nobel for it.

And everybody else has refuted the Gap Theory.

You really think so? I don't see how. I mean I know they don't believe it,but refuted it?

You haven't disproven Evolution.

Refuted means to have proven wrong. You certainly haven't proven evolution wrong. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm talking about refuting it. I already know refuting it doesn't mean its going to be dropped anytime soon. All I've been trying to do is explain and show why I reject evolution. I have not been refuted on any of my points,everything thing that was brought up concerning evolution I showed how I was right.It is just proving normal variation amongst a population and using this for evidence life evolves. If normal variation in reproduction is evolution,I don't see how,and it is'nt,there is much more to evolution than just proving that.

You must have a black belt in the art of self-delusion.

[abelcainsbrother]

And everybody else has refuted the Gap Theory.

You really think so? I don't see how. I mean I know they don't believe it,but refuted it?

You haven't disproven Evolution.

Refuted means to have proven wrong. You certainly haven't proven evolution wrong. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm talking about refuting it. I already know refuting it doesn't mean its going to be dropped anytime soon. All I've been trying to do is explain and show why I reject evolution. I have not been refuted on any of my points,everything thing that was brought up concerning evolution I showed how I was right.It is just proving normal variation amongst a population and using this for evidence life evolves. If normal variation in reproduction is evolution,I don't see how,and it is'nt,there is much more to evolution than just proving that.

You must have a black belt in the art of self-delusion.

Nah! People don't take the time to look into evolution to see that you are right. It is just easier to ignore it and keep believing it.I challenge people to examine the evidence used for evidence in evolution science and they'll realize I'm right,if they are honest with their self.It kinda requires homework although they really should already know about evidence if they accept evolution.I'm telling them the truth about evolution but it is up to them to put it together to realize I'm right.

[bbyrd009]

fur.jpg (4.92 KiB) Viewed 2504 times

but with stuff like this still occurring, and now evidence of Denisovan and Neandertal DNA in our lines, you gotta ask at what point you are maybe channeling the RCC, putting people to death for suggesting that the earth revolves around the sun.

[RickD]

fur.jpg

but with stuff like this still occurring, and now evidence of Denisovan and Neandertal DNA in our lines, you gotta ask at what point you are maybe channeling the RCC, putting people to death for suggesting that the earth revolves around the sun.

[bbyrd009]

i don't get it, sorry

[abelcainsbrother]

IMO you Theistic Evolutionists need to find a new creation interpretation and creation theory. I think you only have Gap Theory or Day Age to choose from.

[neo-x]

Let's just say there are serious "gaps" in the gap theory at the moment...merry xmas ACB.

[abelcainsbrother]

Let's just say there are serious "gaps" in the gap theory at the moment...merry xmas ACB.

Merry Christmas to you too. As far as gaps in the gap theory? It seems like it but that is because it does not have the big platform to promote it like the others. You have to really seek to find info about the gap theory. Yet most just go to AIG,RTB,ID,etc who have these big ministries to work on how to make it sound good. One thing is for sure. It is kind of taking the dirt road to be a gap theorist,the others have paved roads,etc.
Dirt Road
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5a3MuR6M9g

[Audie]

And everybody else has refuted the Gap Theory.

You really think so? I don't see how. I mean I know they don't believe it,but refuted it?

You haven't disproven Evolution.

Refuted means to have proven wrong. You certainly haven't proven evolution wrong. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm talking about refuting it. I already know refuting it doesn't mean its going to be dropped anytime soon. All I've been trying to do is explain and show why I reject evolution. I have not been refuted on any of my points,everything thing that was brought up concerning evolution I showed how I was right.It is just proving normal variation amongst a population and using this for evidence life evolves. If normal variation in reproduction is evolution,I don't see how,and it is'nt,there is much more to evolution than just proving that.

You must have a black belt in the art of self-delusion.

As Dr Richard Feynman pointed out, the easiest person to fool is yourself.

Those here who think they are right because "God" guides them, making them effectively infallible
are, yes, deranged.

I should talk, of course. I thought it might be posdible to reach ab with things like fact or logic.
How in contact with reality is that?

[Byblos]

Those here who think they are right because "God" guides them, making them effectively infallible
are, yes, deranged.

You've made this comment a number of times now but I'm not sure based on what. Has anyone actually asserted as much (I certainly hope not) or is it just a personal observation you've concluded?

[Audie]

Those here who think they are right because "God" guides them, making them effectively infallible
are, yes, deranged.

You've made this comment a number of times now but I'm not sure based on what. Has anyone actually asserted as much (I certainly hope not) or is it just a personal observation you've concluded?

Why no; I'd not expect anyone to state it directly

However, we do see stated by mant people including the proximal subject of that observation,
that they trust / believe / are speaking what hey call "God's word".

"I trust God's Word, not the words of man." (therefore whatever you say contrary to
God's Word is wrong, I am right, impossible for me to be wrong.)

You know?

"We who are right with god are gifted with right readin', it is all nonsense to a atheist."

I point out that it is their choice to believe in God, or in Allah etc, their choice to interpret what they think to be the word of a god as they do.

Pointed out that to say for example that they know there was a worldwide flood,
because "God" says so is among other things the very definition of intellectual
dishonesty; that it is profoundly arrogant to proclaim knowledge of the natural world
beyond the learning of any resesrcher on earth.

Pointed out that all of this is in fact a declaratoon of infallibility.

How could it be said it is not?

[Philip]

"I trust God's Word, not the words of man." (therefore whatever you say contrary to
God's Word is wrong, I am right, impossible for me to be wrong.)

FIRST part addressed: IF there is a God, such as the God of the Bible, then by all means we have good reason to trust His words. Second part addressed: But that doesn't mean we always can perfectly understand ALL meanings of the Bible, and certainly not if they are non-specific so as that could be examined by historical or scientific analysis. But, again, if such a God exists, and we are reading His actual words, A) we CAN know and have good reasons to believe they are true, AND, they are, even if B) we don't know the how or specifics of how what is referenced played out (like the time issue of the "days" of Creation, of the "the flood"). The last portion ("impossible for me to be wrong"): Depends upon what someone referencing God's words, when making such a statement, actually means. If such a God exists, and we are reading His words - then YES, the WORDS are impossible to be false. But simultaneously, it is entirely possible that one's interpretation of the MEANINGS of God's words are inaccurate, or perhaps even totally false. But that doesn't negate that the words themselves are true.

And just as we cannot prove scientifically how the universe began, there are many things we cannot explain SCIENTIFICALLY. But, of course, that doesn't mean such things aren't true. Science is a powerful tool, but not a perfect or all-knowing one.