Religion Debates and Discussions

Right here is how I know you know nothing about Catholics or our traditions. Do your research and then come back to talk about tradition to me

 

God defines what a christian is.

You know what, forget the term ''christian''. The Bible talks about saved or lost: under grace or under the law.

Romans 6:14King James Version (KJV)
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Those who place their faith apart from works in Christ are saved.

Ephesians 2:8-9King James Version (KJV)
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Those who try to be justified by their works are placing themselves under a curse.

Galatians 3:10King James Version (KJV)
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Those who preach a false gospel are accursed.

Galatians 1:7-9King James Version (KJV)
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The true gospel is found in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV.

1 Corinthians 15:1-4King James Version (KJV)
15 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

People who add works like turning from sin, water baptism, prayer, traditions or you name it are trusting in a false gospel and are therefore not saved.

And to answer your question, the KJV translators added new grammar to preserve the Hebrew and Greek. Words that aren't found in the Hebrew and Greek were added in Italics.

I know every trick in the book. Everytime a heretic, whether catholics or calvinists or whatever, is confronted with their heresies, it's always: ''no this is not what we believe/you are misrepresenting us''.

 

Perhaps I missed it but what Protestant denomination even are you?

 

Agreed.

None. I'm a King James Bible believer.

That means that I believe the King James Bible to be the 100% preserved, infallible and flawless word of God and that I don't care what any ''scholar'' or supposed ''great man of the faith'' has to say.

 

Anyone that says that ISIS isn't part of Islam should get booed off the stage because that's an entirely stupid thing to say. They are Muslim, but they're not representative of the whole. If people say that radicals aren't part of the religion at all, ignore them. They're dumb.

Perversion: the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.
Saying that the dictatorships are perversions of what socialism is really about is very different from saying that they weren't socialist. The website you quoted says only that they believe that the dictatorships were a corrupt form of socialism, and were not following what socialism was fundamentally about, as opposed to saying that they were not socialist. The key difference is that using the word "perversion" still accepts that the governments were still based on and followers of socialism. The site just wants to be clear that they believe the governments in question were corrupted versions of socialism.

The fallacy is also about how the separation is used. It's not used any time someone wants to distance themselves from bad people or actions. It's used when a person wants to avoid criticism by removing a person or group of people from
E.g. when people say things like "if you're a real [country here], you'd do this." The person wants to promote an action, and remove people who don't do the action from the group of "real" whatevers. Even if the people who don't do the thing are citizens, and were born in the country, the person giving the statement is guilty of a no true Scotsman fallacy because they want to avoid the criticisms that come with not taking the action.

The fallacy isn't stupid when it's used correctly, but it is stupid when taken out of context or misused.

 

Agreed.

 

Not only them.

 

I was talking more about morals and points of view rather than facts, per se, but I see what ya mean.

OK first off, you're talking to someone who's JEWISH, ya bleeding idiot. I don't feel much of a connection to Israel and stuff like that, but I probably speak Hebrew better than you. Unless you can give me counter-evidence that rebuts that website's analysis, I'm going to go ahead and not believe you.

- That wasn't the part of my post where I give evidence. That was the part where I explained why macro and micro evolution are the same thing and you either didn't read it or you didn't understand it. Saying that I have FAITH in macro evolution is retarded in numerous ways, firstly because there are mountains of physiological, DNA and fossil evidence that show that we evolved from other species, and secondly because as I have said, you cannot have micro evolution without the macro. Evolution doesn't just suddenly stop when it's about to change one animal into another species. You have not explained what the force is that permits organisms from evolving any further at that point. To say that I have faith that macro evolution works is to say that you have faith that the law of gravity works the same in Afghanistan as it does at your house. You've never been to Afghanistan (am assuming), so you've never experienced the gravity there first hand. But there is a ton of evidence that gravity works the same there, and everything we know about gravity says it will. It's the same with evolution. We have a sht ton of evidence, and while we don't have video (duh) that's about as good as it's gonna get. We also have an understanding of the forces that DRIVE evolution, like natural selection and hereditary mutation, and those forces work the same in the macro and the micro. Do you understand, Goddamit?!?!?

- No, everything is bound by them. Aliens are bound by them. Anything that happens is bound by them, or they aren't laws. I swear I've said most of this stuff like 3 times, I question whether you actually read and digest what's in my posts.

- I googled Noah's ark Bible Passage, clicked on a link that looked OK and scrolled down. Wasn't hard. Now care to explain how Noah got 2 million animals on the boat?

- This literally defines all Christians. You know how many Christians continue to deny the age of the Earth and evolution against all scientific evidence? It is the very ESSENCE of Christianity to disregard evidence (or lack thereof), Gehenna has said he doesn't have any evidence of God existing, and I've provided a sht ton to show how the Bible is wrong. Whereas I focus only on evidence. If you'd GIVEN me any evidence that actually supported your cause, then I would take a good look at it and reconsider my views. I'm open to my worldview changing. Evolution is not my religion, just my reality. If evolution is wrong, I'll be salty, but I'd accept it.

- Infallible? Yes. It simply says "teapot god is real guys." and then it goes on to explain the nature of humanity and the laws of physics. It was written by this Irish guy in a cave somewhere around 8,000 BC, just after the teapot created the world. Since he knew that the world was round and all the laws of physics and it's right about humanity, so it must be true. Please explain to me why the Bible is better. And no, eyewitness accounts from two thousand years ago are not proof.

- o ok

- IT IS ASSUMED WITH LIKE 99.999999% CERTAINTY. Ffs you make the same kind of assumptions every day. If it's really cold inside your house in the morning, you put a coat on because you ASSUME that it's gonna be cold outside too. You haven't been outside yet, so you don't know for sure but you can see other people wearing costs outside (evidence) and everything you know about the weather tells you that if it's cold inside your house, it'll be cold outside too. It's an assumption, but it's a logical assumption that it's ok to live your life by.

If you want 100% certainty, then you wouldn't believe in anything. But what I find really funny is your ridiculous standard of evidence for things such as evolution (which can be met if you take the time to do research and read boring biological articles) yet when it comes to God you take a 2,000 year old book as your only piece of evidence. In History class, we'd call the Bible a piece of sht source for actually knowing what happened, whatever other value it has. You think I'm assuming macro-evolution? Let's say I am. Prove to me that you're not assuming God.

Wow, Gehenna is a major race traitor

Except it was recorded and written and printed by some scholar or man of the faith, si? And you were taught your beliefs by some scholar or man of the faith, si? And don't you think it's kind of unhealthy mentally to trust a book over actual human beings? That's what leads to extremism.

Also one last question:

If you'd be been brought up by a Muslim family, raised to believe that the Qu'ran is the only true word of God and it's infallible and all the rest, you'd believe that right? So if your beliefs are just based on how you were raised, how can you be sure they're true?

 

Just open any lexicon or archaic dictionary.

Regarding evolution, let me ask it differently: how do you know that just because butterflies change colour, we evolved from apes?

And yes, I do assume God by faith. There is no physical evidence for God. God and evolution are both theories, with logic we draw a conclusion based on the evidence we have.

Except it was recorded and written by men that were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:21 KJV) And no, I weren't taught it. I studied it myself. If ''christian extremism'' is taking the Bible 100% serious, then perhaps lol. Atleast Bible believers support the separation between church and state.

Regarding your question, my parents are atheists. I wasn't raised in christianity. Thank God, because most christian parents are awful.

 

Well the archaic thing would work if the Bible was originally written in ENGLISH. But it wasn't. So we have to make do with translations.

Because the same processes that cause butterflies to change colour can and have caused apes to evolve into humans. Natural selection. Hereditary mutation. You know how these things work, right? Please tell me you know how evolution works, because it seems like most of your questions just stem from a lack of knowledge about the process of evolution.

Exactly, no evidence for God. Yet there IS evidence for evolution, I KEEP FKING TELLING YOU HOLY SHT. You are almost as thick as Gehenna, I swear to God. You're not even rebutting the evidence I've brought up or my explanation for why micro and macro evolution are the same things, you're just spouting the same retarded talking points again and again. The evidence:

-Observed micro-evolution, which is the same as a macro.

- Fossil records (this is the main one)

- Bio-geography

- Homologous features

- Molecular biology

This is how khanacademy.org explains the difference between micro and macro evolution:

"Microevolution and macroevolution aren’t really two different processes. They’re the same process – evolution – occurring on different timescales. Microevolutionary processes occurring over thousands or millions of years can add up to large-scale changes that define new species or groups."

They're the same thing, one is just short-term or small-scale, the other is long-term or on a larger scale.

Also another question: if evolution is a lie, why is it pretty much universally accepted by scientists and taught in schools? I'm not saying that it's true just because people think it is, but are all the scientists wrong or all they all in some kind of conspiracy?

Next point, what if I said that the author of my book about the teapot god was inspired by the Holy Ghost. You can't prove it any more than I can so again I ask you: what makes your religion more likely than the one I just made up.

Lastly, I'm curious, what drove you to religion if it wasn't your parents? Christian school or something? It makes me sad to think there are intelligent atheist parents who'll let their kids get brainwashed like you've been.

 

I had figured but it's still actually impossible to read lmao

Next time just hit 'none' and if it's still blue then boycott wikipedia.

-----

I think that the very argument two Christians are having right now should make them reconsider exactly how true the Bible is.

'cuz I mean for an infallible holy book you two sure are having trouble agreeing on how perfect it might be...

Almost like you're overriding the word of God to suit your own interests... like all religious people inevitably have to.

 

1. Well, we didn't evolve from apes, even according to evolution. The commonly held idea is that apes and humans are descended from a common ancestor. It's an important distinction to make because saying humans evolved from apes sort of implies modern apes. The common ancestor was still probably technically an ape, but It's good to make the difference clear. Also, the moths changing color is not the only support for evolution.
Evolution is not the answer to what is descended from what, it's a description of the process by which things are descended from other things.
I've posted an essay I wrote last year in Biology class that discusses a few of the proofs for evolution, if you care to read it:

Spoiler: Essay

The issue of whether or not evolution should be taught in school has been a debate lasting decades. On one side of the argument is the stance that since evolution is backed by so much evidence that the theory is strong enough to be taught as fact. The other side argues that since separation of church and state make teaching religions in public schools illegal, the same should be done to evolution, since it is not supported as fact. This debate has roots in many thoughts, people, and proofs; therefore, a compromise can almost assuredly not be reached in a reasonable time. However, while this is a controversial subject, it is always useful to propose new reasoning and ideas to either side. Based on the evidence given in class, private research, and prior knowledge, evolution has enough support and not enough dissent to be taught in schools.

What is a Theory?
In common speech, a theory is something that has not enough support to be thought of as fact, but has enough proof to be considered. On the contrary, “a theory in science is not a guess, speculation, or suggestion, which is the popular definition of the word ‘theory.’ A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses. A theory, therefore, is built of reliable knowledge--built of scientific facts--and its purpose is to explain major natural processes or phenomena” (www.geo.sunysb.edu). While some people make the claim that evolution shouldn’t be taught in schools as fact because it is “only a theory,” evolution is a scientific theory. For scientists, this means that the hypothesis has been through rigorous testing and has held up against and supported observed phenomena and evidence. Saying that evolution is “only a theory” in biology is analogous to saying gravity is “only a theory” in physics. Evolution is the pinnacle and cornerstone of biological studies, since all biological research assumes evolution to be true. Incredible amounts of evidence and testing have gone into proving and supporting evolution, and it would be a very bad decision to remove evolution from school curricula, or even to teach it as “only a theory,” as this would promote a non-scientific use of the word “theory”.

Fossil Evidence
A fossil is “any remains, impression, or trace of a living thing of a former geologic age” (www.dictionary.com). Fossil evidences of evolution include any trace of ancient life that show increasing complexity in species over time. Scientists can date fossils using a variety of methods. Most commonly, and for rough dating, scientists will analyze the layer of rock the fossil was found in to estimate the age of the fossil. This method is reliable because fossils are deposited on top of rock, and so become a part of the rock layer they fall in. This method isn’t perfect, since fossils are often displaced slightly from their rock layer, and often will sink far into sand or loose soil. The other method is more accurate but also more time consuming and expensive. Scientists can measure the amount of carbon 14 in a fossil and compare it to the amount that should be found in a living animal. Then, using half-lives of radioactive substances, they can determine the age of the fossil. Since half-lives are constant for any given radioactive substance, this method relies only on accuracy of measurements and random chance. This evidence for evolution is sound, since scientists can date and analyze fossils accurately. For example, fossils dating from Cambrian or Ordovician eras are often very simple. Trilobites, classic examples of Cambrian species, are perfect to showcase the simplicity of these fossils. Trilobites consist of a cephalon, or head; segmented thorax; and pygidium, or tail piece. Trilobites are named for their distinct 3-lobed body. They have a large axial lobe sided by a left and right lobe. While the category of all trilobites is vast and contains thousands of species, all trilobites have this unique and simple form (www.trilobites.info). Ordovician fossils mark the rise of marine invertebrates, which are still very simple fossils. As the fossil record goes on, species grow larger and more intricate, indicating that they evolved to meet needs. The fossil record is, therefore, a solid proof of evolution.

Transitional Fossils
“Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms” (evolution.berkeley.edu). In simpler terms, a transitional form is any evidence that species have been changing over time. For example, whales posed a problem to biologists for a long time, since they are mammals, which is out of place for marine animals. Furthermore, whales’ style of swimming is different from that of all other marine animals. New studies show that whales probably evolved from a land scavenger which took to the water to avoid predators and to find abundant food. Gradually, this species of scavenger wolf lost its paws to form larger, more flat flippers, its nostrils rose to the top of its head for maximum efficiency, and its back paws may have formed into the whale’s powerful tail (www.evolution.berkeley.edu). Transitional species are an evidence for evolution since they show that species change over time to enter new environments.

Vestigial Structures
Vestigial structures are those that seem to have no purpose in the body of whatever species they exist in. Vestigial structures, also known as vestigial organs, are commonly thought to have been made irrelevant because of evolutionary change as the species no longer needed them. (evolution.about.com). Since it would waste precious energy, a developing embryo may not spend time developing organs that won’t provide an advantage. Examples of vestigial structures are found in huge numbers throughout species. Examples in humans are the coccyx, or the tailbone; the plica luminaris, the remnant of a third eyelid; and the appendix, although new research suggests some possible use. (evolution.about.com). The assumed use of the tailbone was as the base for a tailbone in monkeys, which lost the need for a tail when they left the trees and began walking on two legs. Vestigial structures support the theory of evolution because there would be no reason for a species to develop useless organs or tissue. The descent of a species from an earlier species provides an explanation for this. Vestigial structures, therefore, are a solid reason to believe evolution should be taught in public schools.

Homologous Structures
Homologous structures are one of the strongest supports for evolution. Homologous structures are “structures derived from a common ancestor or same evolutionary or developmental origin” (www.biology-online.org). In simpler terms, these are forms that have similar or nearly identical structure for a similar or identical purpose. Examples of homologous structures are abundant throughout history and species. Legs are a classic example of this evidence for evolution, as this structure is found is almost every animal, especially mammals. Legs of cats, dogs, arms of humans, and legs most other mammals use a distinct pattern. Even wings of bats and whale flippers have an extremely similar pattern. Their upper limb consists of one bone connected to two bones in the lower part of the limb. Those are connected to a wrist bone, and several protruding bones. In humans, these bones make up fingers, in cats and dogs they extend into claws and are used for support, in bats the digits are extended into supports for the wing, and in whales they support and shape the flipper. The evidence seen in homologous structures is strong support for evolution and subsequently its teaching in schools. Homologous structures evidence, therefore, supports the idea that evolution should be taught in school as scientific theory.

Embryo Similarities
There are many similarities in shape and structure of developing embryos across many species. Embryonic similarities are, although weak, a support for evolution. While it may not be a strong proof, embryos can provide some evidence. Embryos are unborn and developing offspring of any species. They are, notably, also very similar in appearance. This is due to very similar methods of development in every species of animal. Even species as dissimilar as humans and fish share many shape similarities in embryos. The main difference is size of the head and how far it protrudes from the body. Another example of how embryological similarities can support evolution is that some species of snake embryos often have legs in early stages, but rapidly lose them as they develop (www.evolution.berkeley.edu).

Biochemistry
Biochemistry provides the strongest proof for evolution in this paper. The DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and RNA (ribonucleic acid) found in every species is identical in form, structure, and function. DNA codes for protein synthesis and development in every species, which strongly suggests a common ancestor. RNA in any species is involved in protein synthesis and is again identical to RNA in any other species. Dissenting opinions on evolution may argue that such a complex molecule would be impossible to form from random chance, especially with the ability to self-reproduce. While this event may seem unlikely, recent research suggests that it may have happened faster than previously believed. In class, we were taught of an experiment in which Stanley Miller and Harold Urey were able to create simple amino acids from abiotic material. They essentially heated, electrically charged, and exposed to UV radiation a sample of “primordial soup,” which is our best guess about early-Earth conditions. After a while, glycine and alanine were generated. This experiment has not gone unnoticed by the science community, and further attempts have been made to create organic molecules. Recently, a team of scientists have been able to actually produce RNA-like strings of the nucleotide bases barbituric acid and melamine. The article explains that these two acids may have been sort of place holders, allowing for adenine and uracil to take their place later (Cafferty et al. 2016). This study works to show that essential life components like DNA may come much faster on new planets than previously expected. Therefore, life beginning on Earth did not necessarily require intelligent design, as scientists have been able to reproduce what may have taken place early in Earth’s history. In addition, the existence of self-replicating DNA and RNA that can mutate spontaneously provides a mechanism by which change in species over time can occur. Biochemical evidence provides very strong support for evolution.

Conclusion
While a person might lean toward one side, they do not necessarily disagree with or ridicule the claims of the other side. Evolution, being an essential part of biology, should be taught in school. Evolution is such an important part of biology teachings that it would be a dire mistake to remove it from teaching in schools. Removing it would limit students’ exposure to the real science world and would have negative effects on the future of biology studies. Religion is a sound set of morals and is good for peoples’ conscience, but should not be taught in public schools, nor is it strongly supported enough by science to remove vital topics from classes based only on differing opinion. Science subjects should be based on what can be nearly proven with fact and not on what personal beliefs determine. If anything, evolution should be taught alongside teachings of what a scientific theory is. Doing this would strengthen the future’s understanding of the science community and would promote a more understanding mindset. Teaching of evolution should include clear statements that belief is on the individual and that schools will not forcibly make students take a certain opinion, but also should make sure to say that evolution is the best explanation that is supported by scientific fact. Public schools could offer non-mandatory classes that would discuss other opinions and beliefs such as intelligent design and creationism along with the political controversy over the teaching of evolution, but those classes should be separated from the sciences.

Works Cited
Bracher, Paul J. "Origin of Life: Primordial Soup That Cooks Itself." Nature Chemistry 7.5 (2015): 273-74. Http://www.nature.com/. Web. 2 May 2016.

"Developmental Biology." Lines of Evidence: Developmental Biology, Page 1 of 2. University of California, Berkeley, n.d. Web. 05 May 2016.

Scoville, Heather. "How Is Your Appendix Evidence of Evolution?" About.com Education. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 May 2016.

Cafferty, Brian J., David M. Fialho, Jaheda Khanam, Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy, and Nicholas V. Hud. "Spontaneous Formation and Base Pairing of Plausible Prebiotic Nucleotides in Water." Nature Communications (2016): n. pag. Web.

The essay was really written as a response to the prompt question "should evolution be taught in schools," so a lot of it is arguing the point that there is enough evidence for evolution and not enough for creationism, but the proofs of evolution are still entirely accurate (at least as far as my biology teacher and I know)

2. I've covered the word "theory" many, many times in this thread. Evolution is a scientific theory, meaning all the data and evidence supports it or can be explained by it. God is a colloquial theory, meaning an idea with no supporting evidence. The way that oregonstate.edu/instruction/bb317/scientifictheories.html differentiates is very well put: "In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time."

 

I was talking about a Hebrew dictionary. Keep in mind that ''chuwg'' is also archaic. There was no word for sphere during that time. Now any lexicon or dictionary will refer to it as circle, compass and orbit. In context of the earth, it has to speak about an orb shape, because only an orb is perfectly circular. It couldn't possible talk about a flat earth, because a disc shape is 2D. A flat earth could never be a circle, because the earth would have no depth.

I know how evolution works and thank you for answering my question. Still I find it too much of an assumption that just because variations happen in species, we must have evolved from apes. Micro evolution still has its boundaries: cockroaches eventually could become immune to bugspray, but do you think they will ever become immune to a sledge hammer?

I can't rebut what isn't there. I'm not convinced by the assumptions that you call evidence. I am convinced by the prophetic and scientific evidence that backs up the King James Bible.

- Again, how does micro evolution prove that we have evolved from different species?

- This is another assumption from evolutionists: ''look, they have some of the same bones! They must be related!''

- In favour of micro evolution

- Another assumption

- This is a complex but interesting topic; I have been watching videos about it lately. I still cannot say much about it since I haven't fully studied the matter.

And how does Khan know that just because there are variations, we must have evolved from different species? This is the authority fallacy

This is the bandwagon fallacy. It doesn't matter what scientists have to say about it. Many ''scientists'' are now also endorsing the gender neutral crap spouted by SJW's. Those scientists are simply wrong and also assume that just because micro evolution is an observable fact, macro evolution must also happen.

Because the Bible contains prophecies.

No, I didn't go to a christian school. I went to a secular school were evolution was taught. Since I'm a free thinker and a skeptic, I just didn't accept evolution due it being taught in school and many scientists supporting the theory. I became a King James Bible believer, because I was convincted by the word of God where I found eternal life and basically answers for all the questions I had. My parents are atheists as in the definition: a lack of belief in god(s). It doesn't mean that they watch National Geographic all day long or that they spend their free time arguing with christians. I basically was an ''Idon'tgivea****weknowitwhenwe'redead''-ist by default just like my parents still are.

Hi BAWWSS, you are partly right about this. The thing about Bible-agnostics like Gehenna is that they don't believe a perfect Bible exists. (so they make lots of stuff up) King James onlynists like me do and we compare scripture with scripture.

 

If you can't provide a source that explains the archaic Hebrew meanings, I'm afraid I won't believe you. I don't know where you're talking from.

You say you know how evolution works, but I don't think you really do if you still think micro-evolution and macro are different processes. The logic isn't "we can see variation in species, therefore we evolved from apes". The logic is that there must be something driving the changes in species, which we know now is natural selection and hereditary mutations. From there, we can begin to learn about our ancestry. We know the earth is billions of years old and we know humans haven't always been around so if we put aside a creator (for which there is no evidence) we must have evolved. And indeed there is a plethora of evidence for this. We've found dozens of hominid fossils and we're able to piece together exactly how humans evolved to be as they are today. Also by examining our bodies and those of chimpanzees, and the differences and similarities in our DNA, as well as by looking at potential common ancestors and how we would've evolved differently, we are able to determine that they are our close cousins. As for the cockroach thing, sure cockroaches could become resistant to hammers. This would require a) that we use hammers to try and kill them, b) that the hammers are actually strong enough to kill some of them and c) they are not strong enough that we kill every cockroach we see. What would happen is that the cockroaches with harder shells or smth, would be less likely to die and they would have more offspring with harder and harder shells until they're nearly completely resistant to hammers. Natural selection bityatch.

Can you PLEASE talk about this prophetic and scientific evidence in the Bible. I'd love to hear it. And no, not the circle = orb thing, which is tenuous. Something else?

Again, the way you misconstrue fossil records is either a bad joke or shows a misunderstanding of how these things work. On a large scale, the first thing to notice is that there are species that used to live on this planet that don't anymore and species that currently live on this planet that didn't live on it a few hundred million years ago. Obviously something is changing the species, and given what we know about the processes of evolution, it should be OBVIOUS that evolution is what's driving these changes. If you have an alternate theory I'd love to hear it. But of course the main evidence lies in individual fossils and what their DNA can tell us about the ancestral tree of all life, but to be honest with you, I think that gets a bit beyond me scientifically.

Could you explain a bit more please about how bio-geography is an 'assumption'? I think it's probably the most interesting piece of evidence there is for evolution, it's certainly pretty cool how much weird sht has evolved in isolated places.

Khan knows that the variations mean macro-evolution is possible because the PROCESS IS THE SAME. motherf*cked, I must've said this like 12 times and you've never explained why the proces is different. The process that gives humans different coloured eyes is the same process that turned into vastly different species. NATURAL FKING SELECTION AND HEREDITARY FKING MUTATION AND AL THAT JAZZ, AIGHT? Also I wasn't really using an authority fallacy in that I'm not saying it's right because Khan says it is. I'm merely pointing a good definition of the difference between micro and macro, to back up my argument.

 

Please tone down the swearing, thanks.

 

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h2329

https://forwhatsaiththescriptures.org/2017/04/30/flat-earth-spherical-earth/ You can read brother Shawn Brasseaux's research on the matter when you go to the pdf on this link.

To answer your reply concerning evolution briefly: I know variations happen, but the only thing we have observed with evolution is that no matter the change in the species, the species is still the same species. Also, those hominid fossils are always either an ape or a human: these are those stronger humans with bigger brains I talked about before, but now you brought them up. I do believe humans looked different pre flood.

I'll gather some links for you.

The primary information a fossil gives us is that its something dead. ''obviously something is changing the species'' - micro evolution happens, yes. Humans did look different back then, but all those fossils are always either from an ape or a human.

Macro evolution through bio-geography is an assumption. Ofcourse natural selection happens, but again, they always stay the same species.

Look, you could keep on screaming that it's the same process all you want, but that doesn't take away the fact that we never observed macro evolution and that you're just assuming it happens, because micro evolution happens.

 

don't tell me how to live my life

you fool

That first link says chuwg translates to circle, circuit or compass. Where's the sphere/orb man?
And that second link is so Christian-biased I can't even begin to tell you. And let me ask you this: if the Bible really did say that the Earth was unequivocally flat, do you think most Christians would acknowledge it? People like you constantly go on about how infallible the Bible is, so if it were proven to be wrong don't you think there would be arguments, such as this, that that's not what the Bible meant? My point is, that when so many Bible-believers are so COMPLETELY convinced by its infallibility, it becomes difficult to learn the actual truth because you can't even acknowledge the possibility that the Bible could be wrong. If the Bible said that the Earth was unequovically flat, most Christians with views such as yours would probably a) start believing in a flat Earth or b) try and get around that with some faux-science or faux-etymology like you're doing here.

Can you provide a citation for this law of nature that species cannot change, no matter how much variation? Also, a citation for fossils being either ape or human. You know that humans are apes, right? When we say humans evolved from apes, we just mean different apes, more "monkeylike" in appearance. And there are many MANY examples of animals that are neither modern humans nor any other modern species of ape. Homo habilis. Homo erectus. Freaking Neanderthals? These are all examples of animals that are transitional between ancient ancestors and the modern human. If you looked at reconstructions based on fossils, you wouldn't think they were human (maybe Neanderthal could pass for human, idk) but you wouldn't mistake them for a chimpanzee or a gorilla either. They are in-between, evidence of the evolution of humans. So when you say that all these fossils are either "ape or human" and by "ape" I think you mean what we commonly think of as apes, then I don't know what the fk you're talking about. Scientists have identified dozens of ancestors of humans that show our transition from monkey to man. Also, can you provide citation for this claim that there used to be humans with bigger brains? I must admit, since brain size doesn't always equal intelligence, I'm not 100% confident that there weren't hominid ancestors with bigger brains. But if you are talking about intelligence, I really need a citation. Humans are the smartest animals on the planet, to my knowledge.

And ok yes pls do. Interested to hear more about dis.

The primary information a fossil gives us is that it's something dead. Well, yeah, but that's kind of irrelevant. Obviously something is changing the species, yes that's true. But then you say that it's MICRO-EVOLUTION? WHAT? When we see 500-million year old fossils of trilobites and little fish creatures then we see 120-million year old fossils of massive dinosaurs and 4-million-year-old fossils of hominid ancestors and we compare it all to the life we see on Earth today, how in God's name is that MICRO evolution? Those are MASSIVE changes. PLEASE FFS tell me how come there were millions of species on Earth that no longer exist today and that there are millions of species on Earth that once didn't exist. Again, please citation that all fossils are either ape or human. Homo habilis. Homo erectus. If you'd looked at a homo erectus you would not think it was chimp or gorrilla or human. It's something else, something in between.

Dude, nearly everything in science is an assumption. The shape of the Earth is an assumption. The fking point is that when we can assume something with 99.99999% certainty, it's illogical to disbelieve in it without evidence to the contrary. Yes it's POSSIBLE that evolution is wrong, just as it's POSSIBLE that the Earth is flat. But I bet you're not a member of the Flat Earth society. And if bio-geography doesn't show evolution, can you tell me why you get certain species and groups of animals that are endemic to certain areas? Let's take the kiwi bird, which is native to New Zealand, my country. You're gonna tell me that in the 6,000 years or however many since the flood, the kiwi bird (WHICH IS FLIGHTLESS) left the Ark wherever it landed, traveled to NZ (WHICH IS AN ISLAND) for no apparent reason and then promptly died off everywhere else? Surely you know that sounds retarded. Same thing goes for all endemic species, and there's a sht ton of them.

I will continue to scream that it's the same process because it is. And you haven't explained why it isn't. Unfortunately it seems that you're too fking thick to understand that because it's the same process, one is proof of another. PLEASE FKING SHOW ME WHY NATURAL SELECTION CAN'T CHANGE AN ANIMAL'S SPECIES. You've admitted micro evolution works and that natural selection and mutation are processes that can cause variation. But you stubbornly continue to claim that natural selection only works within a species, WITHOUT A SINGLE FKING CITATION. You know what species are yes? A "species" is an arbitrary term made up by humans to define different groups of animals. If you can tell me why the force of natural selection would suddenly stop when it's about to change an animal's species, I'm happy to hear it. It pisses me off that this issuch a fking simple concept yet you struggle with it, not because it's reasonable to struggle, but because of your faith. There's a reason why atheists believe in evolution overwhelmingly. When we're free of the burden of religious faith we can examine the evidence without prejudice and come to the logical conclusion.

To demonstrate my point I'm going to use an example of micro evolution showing macro evolution. I want you to tell me specifically where I've gone wrong with this, or I want you to concede the argument and admit macro evolution is real. If you can't, I'll give up because there's no use arguing with people who are on a completely different intellectual plane.

Let's say I have 2000 of an animal. Let's say the animal is an ordinary leopard (I don't know a huge amount about leopards, but I'm just using it as an example. This could really be any animal). I take 1000 and put them in a temperate rain forest setting and I put another 1000 in a snowy open arctic landscape.

Through the forces of natural selection, micro-evolution occurs for the leopards in the rain forest. It's very dark at the forest floor so they evolve slightly better eyes to see in the dark. Much of their prey in the rain forest can see their yellow spotted outline against the trees, so they evolve to have darker, browner fur to blend in with the trees. Also much of their prey is atop tree branches so they evolve better climbing ability. Their brains begin to function slightly differently as their ability to catch prey is more dependent on co-ordination and stealth than the speed of a chase.

Through the forces of natural selection, micro-evolution also occurs for the leopards in the open snowy landscape. The cold kills many of them, so they evolve warmer more insulated fur. There is less food in the cold plains so they they evolve to become smaller because large leopards are unsustainable with such a small supply of prey. They evolve white fur to blend in with the snow. They evolve to be faster to chase down prey such as snow rabbits across long distances. They also need to be able to see across long distances, so they evolve better eyes to be able to see across such distances to find their prey. Also, the landscape is completely unsuitable for leopards in the middle of winter so they adapt their behavior to create a migration: they head several hundred miles south in the winter in search of food and warmth. This changes their overall social behavior and therefore the way their brains work.

Now let's say after a long enough time for all this evolution to take place, I go into the rainforest and I take a leopard and I go into the arctic plains and I take a leopard and I try to mate them. It is likely they would be unable to have children. They are now completely different species. One has darker fur and a brain that focuses on climbing ability and agility, as well as eyes that are suited to seeing in the dark. The other has warmer lighter fur and is much smaller and faster. It also has migrational tendencies. What has therefore happened is MACRO evolution. I've taken animals of the same original species (leopard) and I've created two seperate species, let's call them snow leopard and jungle leopard. Now, all that's happened is a series of micro evolutions. Change in behaviour, fur colour, behavioural patterns, speed and agility. But what these micro evolutionary changes culminate in is a macro evolutionary change. Through a series of small insignificant changes, at some point they have become separate species. I can't say for sure at what point, but they are no longer able to breed.

You see how it works?

 

The problem with claiming that something is invalid because we've never directly seen it is that it excludes a whole lot of everything we know to be true, like:

• Black holes (by their very nature, we can never directly observe them because any light that would let us see them is sucked into it)
• Gravity (because it's not a tangible thing, other explanations can exist as to why objects are attracted to each other)
• History (There are documents from the past, sure, but how can we know they're not faked?)
• Relativity (Because humans can't go fast enough to feel the effects of relativity)

And, if the bare fact that we've never directly seen something is enough to show that something isn't true, why can a person have absolute faith in God? As Gehenna has stated, God doesn't show Himself because it would interfere with our free will. If the Bible is proof enough for God, then why isn't the evidence in favor of evolution proof enough of it? The two serve the same purpose: supports of an unobservable claim. So why can evidence for evolution not be considered?

I'm not really sure you actually took the time to read my response. Microevolution is absolutely not the only proof we have for evolution, as I stated in the essay I posted. Obviously, if you don't want to read an essay, I don't blame you. I just suggest that you take the time to make sure what you're saying is correct.
There are many other proofs of evolution, a few of which were mentioned in my essay. None of the proofs alone are enough to raise evolution to a theory, but working together they provide enough evidence and proof for evolution.

If I could provide an example of direct, recorded, and analyzed observation of speciation, would you change your mind? If your claim is that speciation cannot occur, how would said observation affect that claim? I'm not saying I actually have this, I'm just curious.

How old are these prophecies, and can you provide an example of one, along with evidence outside the Bible that it was fulfilled?