So, You Don't Believe In Noah's Ark? Guess Again!

The Spanish Inquisition accounts for a tiny rounding error of the deaths due to the unholy alliance between Church and State - and Stalin -in a week - did not decimate a fraction of the percentage of the population.

Regardless - both were evil. The 1000 years of Horror being the far greater of the two - by any reasonable measure.

I have not Judged Christianity - I judged what Christianity became. I did not judge on the basis of "Misuse" of Church Doctrine ... I judged on the basis of application of that doctrine. It was the doctrine itself that was evil.

 

What all the 'scientific evidence for evolution" ignore is mathematics and probability.. it is next to impossible that life spontaneously arose and evolved into bacteria.. much less humans.

 

Argument from incredulity plus you're conflating evolution with abiogenesis.

 

science denier

 

You're projecting.

 

You are ignoring the most basic science.. math.. a single cell is more complicated than any thing we can make.. and they self replicate. God the Creator did it.

 

Goddidit is the definition of Science Denial!

 

Given a billion years, half a billion square kilometers of surface area and the different chemical compounds on this planet it's not mathematically impossible nor unreasonable to say that the elements of life came together in just the right way...at least once.

Nobody knows what the most primitive cells looked like; all the cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution.

 

Spot on.

 

Yes .. it is impossible.. do some research.. and, and while you are at it...accept God and His Son, Jesus Christ.

 

I've done decades of research.
Some people think you can't be a Christian and a scientist as well as believe in evolution. That's not true. In fact many of the faithful have long since adjusted their belief system to accommodate evolution, including the Pope.

 

I am Christian and a scientist.. and I do believe in interspecies evolution.

 

Are you referring to hybridizations?

 

Of course there have been many disastrous floods. None that have ever flooded the mountains

Of course, much of the Rio Grande river area was flooded several million years ago geologists tell us.And the Rio Grande river also had a different course over the millennia.

 

There is actually no such thing as "scientific evidence". There is only "evidence" (supporting/conflicting). Science makes use of conflicting evidence (while religion makes use of supporting evidence).

Cosmo is correct about your conflation of evolution with abiogenesis. What you are describing in your post here is the Theory of Abiogenesis.

You will notice that people like to act as if Abiogenesis is science, but it is not, as the theory is not falsifiable (we can't go back in time to see what actually happened). Same goes for the Theory of Evolution (that current life forms are a result of mutations of more primitive life forms). We simply can't go back in time to see what actually happened.

The Theory of Abiogenesis is a religious belief. (not science)
The Theory of Evolution is a religious belief. (not science)
The Big Bang Theory is a religious belief. (not science)
The Theory of Creation (Creationism) is a religious belief. (not science)

 

When you show me your god. You gave me no evidence just what you believe. Science moves on. Many things have changed in the last 200 years and will change in the next 200 as science moves on.

 

Science has moved way past Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, which is nowadays included in a set of theories from a wide field of scientific study, called the Modern Synthesis, which collectively explain how evolution occurs

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact, the term Theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves. It's important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.

 

It's possible. I personally believe that Intelligent Design is more probable, however.

Correct. We weren't around to see what they looked like.

Possibly. "Billions of years" is an unknown value. Might not even be anywhere close to "billions" of years.

 

Stalin at one point was killing 35,000 a week, there were about 20,000 victims of the Inquisition over several centuries. The total body count from communism was probably over 100,000,000, and counting.

Where do Jesus' teachings say to do something like the Inquisition? He did the opposite, He rebuked His disciples who wanted to punish a group who weren't one of them. The parable of the wheat and tares says God will separate the true believers and the false ones at the final judgement, man should not do that now.

You ignore the huge amount of charitable works done by Christians and focus on a small number of wrongs done centuries ago done contrary to Christ's teachings.

 

Micro evolution occurs, we have never observed one species becoming another, or life arising from non-life for that matter.

 

They didn't have to, the mountains are post-flood, which is why we see sea fossils on top of the highest mountains. You may believe in a system of uniformity of causes in a closed system, I don't.

So you agree there was a flood. Think about what size would be needed to put down 1,500' of water deposited sediment, in an area with 9" of rain a year.

Irrelevant.

 

Proponents of ID offer no valid challenge. Their assertions regarding evolution are based on theological principles, apologetics and pseudoscience.

 

That's possible. However, credentials on an internet forum are meaningless.

Absolutely correct. I'll explain why below.

One can be all of those things because:
[1] One can be a scientist regardless of particular religious beliefs.
[2] The religions of Christianity/Catholicism do not contradict with the religious belief in the Theory of Evolution in any way. (unlike the theories of Intelligent Design and Abiogenesis, in which there IS a contradiction... ie, only one or the other could be correct).

 

Same here, except I'm an accountant rather than a scientist.

 

then by all means, show your math which supports your claim.