Do you believe in creation or evolution?

[Alpha]

Freedom questions the Bible, Alpha. That indicates critical thinking. Like I say, not every religious person is going to be stupid and likewise not every atheist is going to be Einstein who was clever with his words but pretty much rejected the Biblical God too. Common sense means you have to. I respect moderate Christians in that they appear to display an evolved mindset. The IQ evidence is what it is. It cannot be refuted as easily as an all powerful and now apparently gender neutral God.

Sorry maybe I misunderstood you're quote:

"I question anybody who can believe a book of folk stories over genuine research".

[Gandalf]

Freedom questions the Bible, Alpha. That indicates critical thinking. Like I say, not every religious person is going to be stupid and likewise not every atheist is going to be Einstein who was clever with his words but pretty much rejected the Biblical God too. Common sense means you have to. I respect moderate Christians in that they appear to display an evolved mindset. The IQ evidence is what it is. It cannot be refuted as easily as an all powerful and now apparently gender neutral God.

Sorry maybe I misunderstood you're quote:

"I question anybody who can believe a book of folk stories over genuine research".

When I say folk stories, I mean folk stories, stories passed down generation after generation, and like with evolution such memes will end up being distorted and historically mutated. I don't think the Bible all comes from nothing, but it has its own agenda and mission to fulfill and does not require evidence to back up what it says and this is where science and reason forced Christianity to question itself. Many Christians today likely do question aspects of the Bible, you would have to be stupid to not question it at all. However in saying that there are Christian extremists, particularly in America who do take it all at face value and those people are inevitably going to be intellectually challenged.

I accept that my culture is a Judeo/Christian one and that this along with the freedom of expression has led to the finest of civilizations. That I do not believe in God nor an actual interpretation of the Bible does not mean I cannot see the positive things that have emerged from that tamed tradition. It is one reason why Islam needs to go through a serious process of analysis too, but unfortunately our governments are rejecting our tradition of freedom and silencing anyone who does question the 'religion of peace'. Jesus appears to have been a decent person and of course we can learn from decent people.

[Alpha]

Freedom questions the Bible, Alpha. That indicates critical thinking. Like I say, not every religious person is going to be stupid and likewise not every atheist is going to be Einstein who was clever with his words but pretty much rejected the Biblical God too. Common sense means you have to. I respect moderate Christians in that they appear to display an evolved mindset. The IQ evidence is what it is. It cannot be refuted as easily as an all powerful and now apparently gender neutral God.

Sorry maybe I misunderstood you're quote:

"I question anybody who can believe a book of folk stories over genuine research".

When I say folk stories, I mean folk stories, stories passed down generation after generation, and like with evolution such memes will end up being distorted and historically mutated. I don't think the Bible all comes from nothing, but it has its own agenda and mission to fulfill and does not require evidence to back up what it says and this is where science and reason forced Christianity to question itself. Many Christians today likely do question aspects of the Bible, you would have to be stupid to not question it at all. However in saying that there are Christian extremists, particularly in America who do take it all at face value and those people are inevitably going to be intellectually challenged.

I accept that my culture is a Judeo/Christian one and that this along with the freedom of expression has led to the finest of civilizations. That I do not believe in God nor an actual interpretation of the Bible does not mean I cannot see the positive things that have emerged from that tamed tradition. It is one reason why Islam needs to go through a serious process of analysis too, but unfortunately our governments are rejecting our tradition of freedom and silencing anyone who does question the 'religion of peace'. Jesus appears to have been a decent person and of course we can learn from decent people.

Because you mentioned agenda I thought this might interest you:

There were two essential factors that contributed to Evolution’s “fast start”, meteoric rise, and continuing supremacy:

1. Growing 19th Century Skepticism Concerning Biblical Literalism

2. The Powerful International Force of Marxist-“Progressive”-Liberal Politics

By the time that Darwin had set pen to paper, many among the European and American Intelligentsia were having their doubts about the literal accounts of the Book of Genesis. They weren’t necessarily Atheists. Indeed, Darwin himself was an Agnostic, not an Atheist.

But many were thirsty for an alternative explanation of Creation. These reasonable doubts had thus predisposed the Intellectual Class to accepting a different explanation for the mystery of life. The soil of many educated minds had already been loosened and fertilized before Darwin even published Origin of Species.

The 2nd (and most significant) element of Darwin’s instant success has to do with politics. Even more so than money, politics can be the most corruptive force created by man. As with any other historical myth, it was the power of politicized force that exalted and sustained Evolution. And make no mistake; the rise of Darwinian Evolution has always been steeped in the corruptive culture of politics; of the Leftish type.

Recall that Soviet Comrade Oparin (under Stalin’s supervision) gave us the “Primordial Soup”. Communist lover Urey gave us a rigged amino acid experiment. The pro-Communist ACLU brought us the circus of the Scopes Monkey Trial. Marxist Hollywood brought us one ridiculous Straw Man version of Inherit the Wind after another after another. Son of a Communist Gould brought us “Punctuated Equilibrium”. The pattern is unmistakable. The question is: why?

The ink in Darwin’s 1859 Origin of Species was barely dry before the two man-gods of the logically flawed ideology of Communism, Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, began promoting Darwin’s work. Engels had actually acquired one of the first 1200 copies of Darwin’s clap-trap. Follow this sequence of events.

November 24, 1859: Darwin publishes Origin of Species

November 27-30, 1859: Engels acquires of the very first copies and sends a letter to Marx telling him:

"Darwin, by the way, whom I'm just reading now, is absolutely splendid".

December 19, 1860: Marx writes a letter to Engels telling him that Darwin’s book provides the natural-history foundation for the Communist viewpoint:

“These last four weeks, I have read all sorts of things. Among others, Darwin's book ….this is the book which contains the basis on natural history for our view.

January 16, 1861: Marx writes an excited letter to his Communist friend Ferdinand Lassalle, the founder of the International Socialist movement in Germany:

“Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle.”

June 18, 1862: Marx had already re-read Origin of Species, and again writes to Engels: “I am amused at Darwin, into whom I looked again”

1862: Marx quotes Darwin again within his Theories of Surplus Value:

"In his splendid work, Darwin did not realize that by discovering the 'geometrical progression' in the animal and plant kingdom, he overthrew Malthus theory.”

German Communist leader Wilhelm Liebknecht later described just how excited the 19th Century Communist leaders all were about the new theory:

"When Darwin drew the conclusions from his research work and brought them to the knowledge of the public, we spoke of nothing else for months but Darwin and the enormous significance of his scientific discoveries.”

Though not directly connected to them, Darwin was heavily promoted by Marx & Engels.

Historian Richard Weikart revealed that Marx had started to attend "a series of lectures by Thomas Henry Huxley on evolution.” Huxley, and many in his family, were afflicted with severe, generational mental health problems. This may, or may not, account for Huxley’s odd obsession with passionately promoting a theory that had no evidence behind it, other than the minor variations in finch beaks. For his fanatical promotion of Evolution, the blustering biologist became known as “Darwin’s Bulldog”.

Why would a scientific truth need a “bulldog” to promote and defend it anyway? As the Philosopher St. Augustine once observed, “The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself.' After a century and a half of searching for millions of magical missing links, Darwinism still requires a whole pack of “bulldogs” to defend it.

In the 2nd Edition of Das Kapital, Marx included two explicit references to Darwin and evolution in which he related Darwin's theory to his own opinion about production and technology development. Marx referred to Origin of Species as "epoch-making work”, and went on to compare Darwin’s view of organs to his own bizarre view of tools and manufacturing.

In a book review of Das Kapital, Engels wrote that Marx was:

"…striving to establish the same gradual process of transformation demonstrated by Darwin in natural history as a law in the social field."

June 16, 1873: Marx sends Darwin an autographed copy of Das Kapital, with the words:

Mr. Charles Darwin, On the part of his sincere admirer - Karl Marx.

October, 1873: Darwin writes back to Marx, thanking him for having sent his work:

"I believe that we both earnestly desire the extension of knowledge.

Marx’s admiration for Darwin’s work had little to do with Science. The Communists believed that Darwin provided a perspective that suited the goals of Atheistic Communism.

Hey Fenster, this is copied and pasted as well.

[Fenster]

Yes, Alpha, you're copy and pasting from a young earth creationist outfit, who ironically think flat-earthers and moon conspiracy advocates are nuts.

On that site give this article a read - https://creation.com/arguments-we-th...se#just_theory

You'll especially enjoy these two - https://creation.com/arguments-we-th...t-use#moonhoax and this one - https://creation.com/refuting-flat-earth

[Fenster]

I'd advise anyone to seriously look into the fruit fly experiments, or the pigeon experiments where they have tried to force and observe evolution.

Fascinating.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0204111403.htm


http://robertsaunders.org.uk/wordpre...science-again/

[Fenster]

Intelligent design seems right to me. But not god or the bible.

Anything you want to ask, by all means go ahead, I'm more than happy to tell you what I believe, but I think it's already been stated.

Go on then, what designed us?

[Alpha]

Yes, Alpha, you're copy and pasting from a young earth creationist outfit, who ironically think flat-earthers and moon conspiracy advocates are nuts.

On that site give this article a read - https://creation.com/arguments-we-th...se#just_theory

You'll especially enjoy these two - https://creation.com/arguments-we-th...t-use#moonhoax and this one - https://creation.com/refuting-flat-earth

Not sure what you're point is. I have similar ideas to them in regards to evolution. I doesn't matter to me that they are not flat earthers.

I'd advise anyone to seriously look into the fruit fly experiments, or the pigeon experiments where they have tried to force and observe evolution.

Fascinating.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0204111403.htm


http://robertsaunders.org.uk/wordpre...science-again/

You know full well I can post a link for everyone that you post, stating the complete opposite. But post as many as you like, all it will do is prove the evolution isn't a fact and only a hypothesis for scientists to base their assumptions on. Science like Religion needs one miracle to prove everything.

Intelligent design seems right to me. But not god or the bible.

Anything you want to ask, by all means go ahead, I'm more than happy to tell you what I believe, but I think it's already been stated.

Go on then, what designed us?

It's ok to say you don't know. I don't know and have never once claimed to. But when I look at the complexity of cells and DNA I find it hard to believe it all came together randomly from nothing.

[Gandalf]

Bloody Marx has a lot to answer for. It always ends up being about those bloody Marxists and their agenda. To be fair to poor old Darwin, fascists tended to pick up on his ideas in rather crude ways too. Darwin was agnostic, but in the same way that Einstein or even Dawkins is. No scientist can say "Hand on heart I am 100% an atheist" as that would make you as much an absolutist as the double digit IQ types who argue that man walked with dinosaurs (check the polls, many do indeed believe just that).

In terms of probability those scientists did not believe in a God in any way comparable to the angry bloke or now gender neutral thing that would blow up cities or make odd demands on individual humans every now and then. They just accept that we do not have all the answers, but God is hardly the most practical solution. After all, who invented that very angry man.....sorry erm thing. Then who invented that? And then that? And then that? And on it goes forevermore.

We have this fine planet here and we do at least have some understanding of what it is and how it got here and why life is as it is. At the end of the day if God is unwilling to prove himself.....sorry herself......sorry itself....then that is on it. It is neither here nor there and neither does it matter. It is insanity that we label criticism of something that most likely doesn't even exist as hate crime nowadays too. Humanity has issues going down this path. The only reality we have at the moment is that there is almost no evidence for the existence of a God. Call its name at the top of your voice and nothing will happen. You will never see or hear anything unless your brain is broken or you have had too much brandy that evening or slyly slipped a tab of LSD. It does not matter too much at the end of the day.

And yes God is now gender neutral according to some bloke who is clearly not making it up as he goes along based on no evidence at all.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/sh...-of-canterbury

[Fenster]

It's ok to say you don't know. I don't know and have never once claimed to. But when I look at the complexity of cells and DNA I find it hard to believe it all came together randomly from nothing.

For sure it's fine to say "I don't know" but you're not saying that, it would make you agnostic, you claim it was ID (basically god/a supernatural being).

That's the problem, you don't seem to understand the irony in posting mumbo jumbo/pseudo science to question the validity of real science, when the whole agenda of your source is about proving a literal interpretation of the bible.

However, you dismiss all the real science presented as lies and manipulation.

What makes your own sources authentic? They claim the moon landings were real, in part proven by the fact a fellow creationist - James Irwin - was one of the astronauts.

Explain that? No wait, let me guess, they're lying/wrong about the bit that doesn't support your narrative? They've been duped.

[Alpha]

It's ok to say you don't know. I don't know and have never once claimed to. But when I look at the complexity of cells and DNA I find it hard to believe it all came together randomly from nothing.

For sure it's fine to say "I don't know" but you're not saying that, it would make you agnostic, you claim it was ID (basically god/a supernatural being).

That's the problem, you don't seem to understand the irony in posting mumbo jumbo/pseudo science to question the validity of real science, when the whole agenda of your source is about proving a literal interpretation of the bible.

However, you dismiss all the real science presented as lies and manipulation.

What makes your own sources authentic? They claim the moon landings were real, in part proven by the fact a fellow creationist - James Irwin - was one of the astronauts.

Explain that? No wait, let me guess, they're lying/wrong about the bit that doesn't support your narrative? They've been duped.

I literally said I don't know what created us. We could all be a Sims game for all I know.

I don't believe in evolution and have given my reasons for this. I don't believe in God, or the bible. I'm not sure what sources you're referring to. Just because I don't believe in evolution doesn't mean I have to be religious. But I do follow the same logic that everything seems so perfect to have occurred randomly.

Sorry I don't understand what you're trying to say.

[Fenster]

It's ok to say you don't know. I don't know and have never once claimed to. But when I look at the complexity of cells and DNA I find it hard to believe it all came together randomly from nothing.

For sure it's fine to say "I don't know" but you're not saying that, it would make you agnostic, you claim it was ID (basically god/a supernatural being).

That's the problem, you don't seem to understand the irony in posting mumbo jumbo/pseudo science to question the validity of real science, when the whole agenda of your source is about proving a literal interpretation of the bible.

However, you dismiss all the real science presented as lies and manipulation.

What makes your own sources authentic? They claim the moon landings were real, in part proven by the fact a fellow creationist - James Irwin - was one of the astronauts.

Explain that? No wait, let me guess, they're lying/wrong about the bit that doesn't support your narrative? They've been duped.

I literally said I don't know what created us. We could all be a Sims game for all I know.

I don't believe in evolution and have given my reasons for this. I don't believe in God, or the bible. I'm not sure what sources you're referring to. Just because I don't believe in evolution doesn't mean I have to be religious. But I do follow the same logic that everything seems so perfect to have occurred randomly.

Sorry I don't understand what you're trying to say.

No worries mate.