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.

To which question? That we're done or that you read it all? If you don't respond, then I'll just assume you are tired of continuing this conversation.

Both.

[quote]Both.[/quote]Atheist is speechless.

No, theist just does some verbal dancing by never addressing what evolution actually is, moves his point all over the place to avoid being proven wrong, quotes the bible, and displays ignorance as evidence against evolution.

[quote]No, theist...[/quote]Christian, theist, deist, and atheist are different terms for different reasons because [semantics].[quote]...just does some verbal dancing by never addressing what evolution actually is...[/quote]Okay then. My Evolution Definition: A misconstrued scientific fallacy.[quote]...moves his point all over the place to avoid being proven wrong...[/quote]Three Words: Quote me, please.[quote]...quotes the Bible...[/quote]...and that's wrong because...[quote]...and displays ignorance as evidence against evolution.[/quote]I've been debating against with paragraphs of information, and you regard as displaying ignorance?

You've not once presented information. You've only presented (paraphrasing) "this thing here I don't understand, and this quote kind of backs up me not understanding, so evolution wrong". Every time you present a position, and it's countered you just dismiss it. Try actually researching what you're talking about. You have yet to present a flaw with evolution outside of the fact you don't understand it, and you think genesis is true.

[quote]You've not once presented information.[/quote]The OP.[quote]You've only presented (paraphrasing) "this thing here I don't understand, and this quote kind of backs up me not understanding, so evolution wrong."[/quote]Admitted Paraphrase: Evolution has no case without origins.[quote]Every time you present a position, and it's countered, you just dismiss it.[/quote]Untrue. I've never cease an argument with you.[quote]Try actually researching what you're talking about. You have yet to present a flaw with evolution...[/quote]NO ORIGINS.[quote]...outside of the fact you don't understand it, and you think genesis is true.[/quote]You think evolution is harder to understand than theology?

Origins isn't evolution.

[quote]Abiogenesis not having an answer does not affect evolution.[/quote]Yet one who believes something that has a vital part of the thinking flawed still develops a trust of faith that the belief is true. It is not only evident in your previously mentioned statement but also can be thought throughout the rest of believing evolution when it's origin is easily questioned.