Evolutionists eventually admit they cannot explain what caused the universe to come into being.
It's pretty impressive when the very first sentence is wrong twice. Firstly, this is a pure Argument from Ignorance, the ubiquitous foundational fallacy of creationism. If your argument is unsound from the word go, YOU LOSE. Secondly, it conflates the fields of Biology and Physics--technically speaking, the big bang is irrelevant to evolution.
To use their language, they can't explain what caused the Big Bang.
We're working on it. If we already knew everything, we wouldn't need to do Science.
They also admit they cannot explain what caused the evolutionary process to begin.
Ibid. Jesus Christ, we're talking three billion years ago, going off chemical traces in microscopic crystals of ancient rock. Besides, even if our planet was so active that all physical traces of the Prebiotic Ages were erased, it still wouldn't invalidate evolution. Argument From Ignorance a-go-go.
I find this interesting because they claim evolution to be a fact of biological history.
It has been demonstrated to a degree of certainty such that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent, yes.
We also do not observe Darwinian evolution happening.
Yes we have. The number of observations of evolutionary processes could just about fit into the Grand frakking Canyon. The fact that he says this is ample demonstration of the self-imposed ignorance that makes religion so repugnant.
Oh yes we see examples of changes within species through natural selection, but we have never observed a transformation of one species into another.
Thank you for that. However, evolution predics changes over millennia, so this particular canard is no problem whatsoever. If we did see dogs giving birth to cats, it would disprove evolution. Hell, I'm more familiar with the creationist arguments he's half-remembering, and I have to restrain myself from countering things he hasn't actually said.
We do not observe new DNA information being introduced.
Yes we do. The bacterial synthesis of nylonase required novel information in their genome. That's just one specific example, I've got more.
We see variations on information that was already present in the DNA.
That is one way new information is generated, yes. Oh, WAIT, we're talking about the information that comes predefined as coming from an intelligence, therefore it was intelligently designed. Silly me.
So evolutionists cannot explain how the universe or evolution began.
We've know about evolution for 150 years and the Big Bang for eighty. Exactly when are we expected to have all the answers?
We also do not observe evolution. So how can this be considered a fact?
Because it's the most resoundingly confirmed scientific theory in history. The ONLY people who claim otherwise are people who either don't have an education or are blinded by religious preconceptions.
It sounds more like a faith to me.
You'd like to think that, wouldn't you. So sorry.
We don't see Jesus physically today.
And the next solid evidence he actually did exist I see will be the first.
We cannot explain how Jesus was born.
When an underage Palestinian girl and an amoral Semitic blood god love each other very much, they do a special hug...
We cannot explain how God is eternal.
You got that right, Chester.
However we can explain how faith in Jesus began.
Grab a piece of pie, this is gonna be good.
It began with a well documented and witnessed historical event.
We've got better documentation and witnesses for UFOs, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Mothman, the Chupacabra and crop circles. You see, the standards of evidence that allow one to accept Christianity would, if applied impartially, not only lead one to believe all manner of nonsense, but multiple conflicting religious texts as well.
The crucifixion and with that the resurrection of Jesus: Nothing else can explain how the origins of the church.
Tales and legends which grew in the telling of an itinerant rabbi who stepped out of line and was blithely executed, which his followers weren't prepared to accept. Was that so hard?
So the choice is yours. Either way it is a step of faith, however chosing evolution is a greater step of faith than trusting in Christ and His word.
No, not really. On one side, we have mountains of evidence, on the other we have a pile of uncorroborated legends that don't agree, have no provenance, and don't provide sufficient evidence to accept their claims even if taken at face value. Remember what I said about repugnant, self imposed ignorance? Yeah, 'this.'
You may question why both cannot be true.
I believed both for most of my life. Then I realized one side had nothing going for it.
They both cannot be true because Jesus Himself endorsed the writings of Moses as the word of God.
If we were just now getting documentation of what Teddy Roosevelt said at the end of his life, I wouldn't necessarily believe any given part of it. The man was an inveterate self-aggrandizing liar even in his own lifetime.
If we trust in Jesus, then we acknowledge He is God in the flesh.
Gosh, it's so clear to me now.
Moses wrote of the creation in such a way that it cannot be compatable with evolutionary theory.
It's true what they say about stopped clocks, isn't it?
Death did not exist until man sinned in the Garden of Eden.
The flights of fancy to which creationists spin this fairy tail are sidesplittingly hilarious. Tell me, why did the T-Rexes in the Garden of Eden have mouths full of steak knives?
Likewise God said He created each creature after its own kind.
And evolution predicts that any creature will be the same species as its parent. Even when speciation happens for example, to mosquitoes in the London subways, creationists dismiss it to say "oh, they're still the same kind of animal, even though the two populations can no longer interbreed.
It does not say he created one creature that became other kinds.
It doesn't say that you should wash your hands after you wipe your ass. That kind of information would be helpful.
So the question is simple. Trust the word of God or the words of man.
Read: Trust the words of ignorant premodern superstitionists or the word of people who know the first thing about what they're talking about. Give me a minute here...
The words and theories of man are proven wrong everyday, God's word has never been proven wrong.
Genesis is factually wrong in every particular. Exodus is a myth as well, or didn't you know that the Egyptians kept detailed records? A little thing like ten plagues, an entire slave race carrying off whatever they could hold, and the death of a Pharoah whilst riding across a dry seabed--somebody might have written that down? There's little or no archaeological evidence for much of Old Testament history, in places where there really would be if it ever remotely happened. When science disproves something, it's because we've learned something new and can recognize our mistakes. Religion does the opposite, and rejects any facts which contradict its delusion of inerrancy.
Remember you can't know who you are if you dont know who you came from.
And isn't it amazing how much we've learned about human brains, psychology, and cognition--in a word, who we are--since we discovered scientific principles? I know where I stand.
Overall, a pretty sad effort for a fervently ignorant apologist. I really wonder if he's a Poe--he couldn't make this crap look worse if he sat down and worked at it.
I believed both for most of my life. Then I realized one side had nothing going for it.
They both cannot be true because Jesus Himself endorsed the writings of Moses as the word of God.
If we were just now getting documentation of what Teddy Roosevelt said at the end of his life, I wouldn't necessarily believe any given part of it. The man was an inveterate self-aggrandizing liar even in his own lifetime.
If we trust in Jesus, then we acknowledge He is God in the flesh.
Gosh, it's so clear to me now.
Moses wrote of the creation in such a way that it cannot be compatable with evolutionary theory.
It's true what they say about stopped clocks, isn't it?
Death did not exist until man sinned in the Garden of Eden.
The flights of fancy to which creationists spin this fairy tail are sidesplittingly hilarious. Tell me, why did the T-Rexes in the Garden of Eden have mouths full of steak knives?
Likewise God said He created each creature after its own kind.
And evolution predicts that any creature will be the same species as its parent. Even when speciation happens for example, to mosquitoes in the London subways, creationists dismiss it to say "oh, they're still the same kind of animal, even though the two populations can no longer interbreed.
It does not say he created one creature that became other kinds.
It doesn't say that you should wash your hands after you wipe your ass. That kind of information would be helpful.
So the question is simple. Trust the word of God or the words of man.
Read: Trust the words of ignorant premodern superstitionists or the word of people who know the first thing about what they're talking about. Give me a minute here...
The words and theories of man are proven wrong everyday, God's word has never been proven wrong.
Genesis is factually wrong in every particular. Exodus is a myth as well, or didn't you know that the Egyptians kept detailed records? A little thing like ten plagues, an entire slave race carrying off whatever they could hold, and the death of a Pharoah whilst riding across a dry seabed--somebody might have written that down? There's little or no archaeological evidence for much of Old Testament history, in places where there really would be if it ever remotely happened. When science disproves something, it's because we've learned something new and can recognize our mistakes. Religion does the opposite, and rejects any facts which contradict its delusion of inerrancy.
Remember you can't know who you are if you dont know who you came from.
And isn't it amazing how much we've learned about human brains, psychology, and cognition--in a word, who we are--since we discovered scientific principles? I know where I stand.
Overall, a pretty sad effort for a fervently ignorant apologist. I really wonder if he's a Poe--he couldn't make this crap look worse if he sat down and worked at it.
