[quote] (1) Evolution is not random chance, but a process defined by the law of natural selection.[spoiler]...each piece is haphazardly clashed against every other piece with no pattern whatsoever.[/spoiler][/quote]Hey Atheists, is there something wrong with this statement?[quote](2)...Evolution is cumulative.[/quote]His analogy exhibited that even if the elements to self-create our planet over millions to billions of years existed, the likelihood of them reaching a level of inevitable complexity is a mathematical impossibility. [quote][spoiler]To more accurately represent evolution, you would have to shake your box practically indefinitely, ...saving the assemblages that could eventually make up a watch.[/spoiler][/quote]It still is regarded as impossible since the steps to comply with every minuet and correct, additional part would have to function in an orderly manner, which you stated in your point #1 statement as impossible.[quote](3)...[spoiler]...We do not observe complex new creatures in the fossil record, rather we see them changing from a line of gradually dissimilar ancestors.[/spoiler][/quote]The fossil record shows evidence of only micro-evolution (variations of the same species), but it does not show either branches of at least one species or the high count of transitional fossils for even one species. If evolution does indeed operate over millions to billions of years, is their not supposed to be over at least a million (which there isn't) transitional fossil records [b]per species[/b]? Evolutionists claim that the process of evolution is in fact very slow and very minuet, but all atheistic archeologists can find are only an acclaimed few. Even Darwin doubted as to the origin of these small minuet changes that were acclaimed to be caused by the present environmental hazards he assumed to be affecting their biology, saying, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree...The difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection , though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered subversive of the theory" (On the [i]Origin of Species[/i], Chapter 6). The study of abiogenesis (the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.) doesn't even have a conclusion as to the manifestation of organic life from non-organic material, or even a conclusion as to the necessity and development of intelligence (for only one species) and complexity.

Its painful to watch people provide proper rebuttals and see you ignore them "just because"

Easy cure: Stop reading the b8.

I can't, I see some of these morons believing it and agreeing and it drives me crazy. Intentionally or unintentionally, you're spreading ignorance, which is more toxic to society than any other thing.

[quote]...which is more toxic to society than any other thing.[/quote]I think I can think of some worst things.

I cannot. A blatant ignorance and denial of science will literally send us to the dark ages.

[quote]I cannot.[/quote]Huh, limited scientific mind is limited.[quote]A blatant ignorance and denial of science...[/quote]This statement ignores the fact that providing more insight as to another's view on origins is not in the process of encouraging others to resist sharing information.[spoiler]Hence, we get more numbers added to this thread.[/spoiler][quote]...will literally send us to the dark ages.[/quote]This statement shows how much the author doesn't know about the Dark Ages.

I don't give a shit about anyone's [u]view[/u] on origins that isn't performing experiments to test that view. Your speculation is done only in the interest of supporting your conclusion, which you already arrived at and that's not how it works. Your religious mind is limited. Everyone's mind is limited. Go ahead, imagine a color you've never seen before. You cannot give me a realistic scenario for society that ends worse than a majority of people denying basic scientific knowledge. I picked the dark ages for what I said, precisely because I know about it. It was picked on purpose. Maybe you should spend less time being petty, and more time learning about reality. I understand you really want your bullshit thread about fantasy to keep going. But you're not helping your point. For every question you have asked I have given an honest and accurate answer that you simply have no rebuttal for, because your creation websites know they can't debunk reality, and/or you're incapable of actually learning new information. I'm so sick of your parading around as though you have some kind of valuable view point. You do not. Your view point has been considered, analyzed, and found to be shit.

[quote]I don't give a shit about anyone's view on origins that isn't performing experiments to test that view.[/quote]I rest my case. [quote]Your speculation is done only in the interest of supporting your conclusion...[/quote]It is not my belief, and it is substantiated by both non-biblical (un-biased history) sources and by the presence of there being no evolutionary explanation to organic origins.[quote]...which you already arrived at and that's not how it works.[/quote]Again, vague pronoun usage. What's your "that"?[quote]Your religious mind is limited.[/quote]I'm open to anything else you have to say about evolution.[quote]Everyone's mind is limited. Go ahead, imagine a color you've never seen before.[/quote]Plad.[quote]You cannot give me a realistic scenario for society that ends worse than a majority of people denying basic scientific knowledge.[/quote]Agreed, that society is indeed ignorant.[quote]I picked the dark ages for what I said precisely because I know about it. It was picked on purpose.[/quote]As I said before, the Dark Ages was caused by the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church are not Christians.[quote]Maybe you should spend less time being petty, and more time learning about reality.[/quote]Opinionated statement is an opinion.[quote]I understand you really want your bullshit thread about fantasy to keep going...[/quote]Not really, I'm not the one continuing the thread. You are the one who keeps responding. As soon as everyone stops, I'll stop. Isn't that how it goes? Whatever everyone else is doing, do the same. Once the replies cease, so will my acclaimed bull.[quote]...but you're not helping your point. For every question you have asked I have given an honest and accurate answer that you simply have no rebuttal for...[/quote]The last question I asked left you stating, "I don't know." So... I rest my case.[quote]...your creation websites know they can't debunk reality...[/quote]Not even your evolutionary statements.[quote]...you're incapable of actually learning new information.[/quote]I'm learning something new everyday. Just recently someone showed me how evolution is not random.[quote]I'm so sick of your parading around as though you have some kind of valuable view point.[/quote]Easy cure: Stop reading the thread.[quote]You do not. Your view point has been considered, analyzed, and found to be shit.[/quote]Obvious opinionated statement manifesting from anger is obvious.

That's the thing, creationism is not, in any way substantiated by anything other than the bible. Every thing you have brought, I have showed you how your wrong. And me not knowing the answer for Abiogenesis has 0 impact on evolution. If you think it does, you don't understand what evolution is. Nobody has any obligation to entertain your beliefs based on opinions and misinformation. You have the obligation to fix your own opinions to bring them into line with reality. [spoiler]plad isn't a color. Its a pattern. [/spoiler]

[quote]That's the thing, creationism is not in any way, substantiated by anything other than the Bible.[/quote]Biblical Source (literal translation): "But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother" (Galatians 1:19, ESV). Non-Biblical Source (literal sync): "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James..." ([i]Antiquities[/i], Book 20, Chapter 9). Biblical Source (metaphorical translation): Background: Before the following statement, Daniel had a vision (Daniel 8:1-14), and he had no idea what it meant (Daniel 8:15). So God instructed Gabriel to tell Daniel the meaning of the vision (Daniel 8:16). When Gabriel came to Daniel, Daniel fainted, and Gabriel woke him up (Daniel 17-8), stating, "As for the ram that you saw with two horns, these are the kings of Media and Persia. And the goat is the king of Greece. And the great horn between his eyes is the first king (the first king to conquer and control both the Medes and the Persians)" (Daniel 8:20-1, ESV). Non-Biblical Source (use any textbook preference): If you are a history scholar, you would understand that the biblical description describes Alexander the Great (Daniel 8:4). At the height of his power, he died unexpectedly (Daniel 8:8), and his kingdom was given over to his four generals (Daniel 11:4), who "were not his descendants," yet they did not become as powerful (Daniel 8:22) as Alexandar. The Bible gives further prophetic verses conserving the Roman Empire, the Greeks, the Medes and Persians, the Gentiles (me and you), the Jews, Cyrus the Great, and more. As far as historical substantiation goes, the Bible has never been wrong.[quote]Everything you have brought [up], I have showed you how [you are] wrong, and me not knowing the answer for Abiogenesis has zero impact on evolution.[/quote]For those of you who have just joined us, despite what Britton has stated, I explained how evolution has no explanation as to the origin of organic life manifesting from non-organic material, to which he responded, "The study of Abiogenesis has no explanation as to that yet," and his faith toward evolution hasn't been shaken even though I already explained the origin of God.[quote]Nobody has any obligation to entertain your beliefs based on opinions and misinformation.[/quote]Agreed.[quote]You have the obligation to fix your own opinions to bring them into line with reality.[/quote]Then why won't you? [quote]Plad isn't a color. Its a pattern.[/quote]...possessing a blend of colors, that from a distance, looks entirely new.

Excellent. All your counters to evolution are from the bible or other texts which not only predate its discovery, [b]they don't even directly address it[/b]. You're effectively saying that because people didnt know about evolution before it was discovered, it somehow is wrong. That's simply moronic. So you still haven't provided an actual counter to modern scientific information. Once again, for the millionth time, origins of the first life has 0, that's right, [b][i][u]0[/u][/i][/b] to do with evolution. Why you continuously insist that not having an answer yet gives any credit to an alternative explanation with 0 evidence, is beyond me. My belief on Abiogenesis is that it obviously happened, but what caused it is unknown. This position takes 0 faith or belief due to the fact I'm not supporting any answer because one hasn't been 100% found yet. Abiogenesis not having an answer does not affect evolution. Again. [b] Abiogenesis not having an answer does not affect evolution. [/b] One last time, since you still don't understand. [b][u] Abiogenesis not having an answer does not affect evolution. [/u][/b]

...and no, not all my counters to evolution are from the Bible. One can easily disprove evolution without even mentioning the Bible. My previous reply was stating the historical content that the Bible possesses has [b]never[/b] shown an evidenced fallacy. It was in response to what I quoted from you, not about evolution.

The bible never shows an evidenced fallacy? Biased incorrect statement is biased and incorrect.

You forgot to quote the entire sentence.

Don't need to.

[quote]Don't need to.[/quote]Picking and choosing information that the opposing party has stated in the same sentence is a low tactic Britton. Usually you would be more unbiased in all further statements than usual.

You know what's wrong with your view. It's been pointed out. Instead of constantly trying to see how you can prove evolution wrong with things that have nothing to do with biology or evolution with quotes from the bible, try studying biology, ecology, genetics, geology, etc and find out how they know it's true. See the thing is I grew up believing what you did. Then I researched evolution in earnest instead of just trying to debunk it, and I learned exactly how it works, and why we know its true. I was also fortunate enough to work in a filed where I could see it in action all the time.

[quote]You know what's wrong with your view. It's been pointed out. Instead of constantly trying to see how you can prove evolution wrong with things that have nothing to do with biology or evolution with quotes from the bible...[/quote]I have never used the Bible to disprove evolution. Evolution and theology are entirely different. Whenever I mentioned one and the other, the thinking was never involved or intended to conflict with each other except to prove an evident truth or fallacy in one or the other.[quote]See the thing is, I grew up believing what you did. Then I researched evolution in earnest, instead of just trying to debunk it, and I learned exactly how it works, and why we know its true.[/quote]...and I'm sadly disappointed for you. I suppose that as an Atheist you feel somewhat good about yourself. Correct? Is that why you possess such hostility toward Christianity? In any case, I respect your conclusion. I personally have the same origin story except with an obviously different ending.[quote]I was also fortunate enough to work in a filed where I could see it in action all the time.[/quote]Which was?

I have no hostility towards any religion as a whole. I have hostility toward groups out of religions that try to spread ignorance in interest of protecting literal interpretation of their holy books. I was attended a environmental charter school in high school. The Academy of Environmental Science in Crystal River, fl, after that I worked for the Florida park service for 3 years as a park ranger along side biologists and other experts of the field, then I worked 3 more years as a forest ranger. If you just get out in nature and observe how the species of creatures have evolved to fill the niches in ecosystems, and how dynamic that relationship is, that alone is more than enough proof, you can see it in action on a small scale very easily. And yet, the evidence for evolution goes far beyond that.

[quote]I have no hostility towards any religion as a whole.[/quote]After you stated, "I don't give a shit about anyone's view on origins." [quote]I have hostility toward groups out of religions that try to spread ignorance in interest of protecting literal interpretation of their holy books.[/quote]Agreed, but my intention is not to promote ignorance but to provide [b]information[/b] regarding what is according to Christianity. Those who claim to be part of Christianity yet seek a lifestyle of God-care ease are fools and are [b]never[/b] to be considered Christians. In any case, I've been to public, private, and Christian schools, and I can without any extreme biases that out of the many educational firms that I've been through, Christian schools have been one of the biggest promoters of expanding their knowledge in science. Even if those who claim to be a Christian enthusiastically state that they are Christians, they have to not only believe, but they have to make it evident in their life. Even those who claim to be a Christian and yet promote such a state of ignorance and foolishness is a [b]damnable[/b] sin, so much so that it was quoted by Jesus that He detested such stupidity inflicted upon young-minded people, and I can assure you that there is no way in hell that my intention is to promote such stupidity here or with my friends and family. As far as evolution goes, it literally doesn't make any sense to me. It isn't that I don't understand it. It's just that there's so much missing that I thought would exist: a lot of transitional forms of fossils for at least one species, cosmic dust, origin of intelligence, the necessity for complexity paradox, organic manifestation, cyclical processes, the repudiation of spontaneous generation, inherently bad mutation, etc. As far as the Bible goes, evolution does not have an adequate explanation according to my findings. Then I assume, "God possibly?" since we know that life on Earth needed a cause, and God has no cause because, by definition, He is eternal. Then you may ask, "What justifies this fact?" and I'll respond by saying, "The Bible," and then you would arrogantly respond by saying, "What makes the Bible authentic and not a book just written by man?" to which I would respond, "It's content." to which you would say, "Well that's stupid. You can't source yourself." and then I'll explain by saying, "The Bible itself states that it was written by men endowed by the Holy Spirit of God. If anything was written by man and man alone, would there not be a perfidious motive for man? The Bible promotes God and only God, and it states that there is no other God except Him. "The Book of Moroni teaches polygamy is legal, God was once a man like us, works promote our salvation, and we will eventually be a god of our own planet and have an infinite amount of sex with our loved one(s), like God did when He had Jesus Christ. This is a highly damnable fallacy. The Catholic Church promoted the Apocrypha about 30 years after Martin Luther debunked it with the Ninety-five Thesis explaining their fallacy since the Catholic Church promoted salvation by works, the forgiveness of sins by priests, the celibacy of the Catholic priesthood, the deistic homage toward Mary, the holiness of the Pope, and more. This is a highly damnable fallacy, and how one can determine a faith to be not legit is to find whether it possesses a perfidious motive which would usually be through monetary or physical gain (The Catholic Church) or psychological self-appeasement to one's state in their version of the acclaimed after-life (The Doctrine of Mormonism). "The Bible alone, without all that additive crap, which was added to change the canon, is the [b]only[/b] text in the world that does not call one to a state of self-fulfillment, but to a state of self-denial; and so, it could not have been written by man since it didn't have the intent in the first place to appease men, but instead, it promotes throughout the entire text an individual who you believe to be our Flying Spaghetti Monster, God. If it was written by man alone, it would have at least provided some gain to an individual on Earth (e.g., The Pope or The Catholic Church) or a well-appeasing infinite carnality desire (e.g., spiritual sex or earthly polygamy in Mormonism). "To summarize, evolution has no origin so God must exist in order for life to begin to have complexity, intelligence, and organic life. [spoiler]Note: Darwin doubted the origin of complexity even in his studies written in chapter 6 of [i]On the Origin of Species[/i][/spoiler]Everything has a cause but God doesn't since He's eternal. The Bible is true because it was evidently not written by man with the intent of appeasing men, and it promotes only God and exhibits every human, even the prophets as flawed creatures that were justified for eternal damnation"; thus, everything logically has a cause.

And we're done here.

That's it? You've read all that I've stated already? I afforded you the luxury of reading your text, and all you have to say is, "done"?

Yes.