ALTER2EGO -to- VEEDDZZ:

I believe evolution is a myth for two reasons:

1. I believe the Bible's account at Genesis because I find the Bible to be a trustworthy source, and the Genesis account doesn't make room for evolution theory. The Bible contains almost 2,000 accurately fulfilled prophesies--many of which have been confirmed by archeology and secular history (meaning history that's independent of the Bible). The accurate fulfillment of those prophesies is evidence that the Bible was written under inspiration of Jehovah. Therefore, I have good reason to trust what the Bible says.

2. There is no physical evidence that proves evolution ever occurred. The fact that the word "evolution" is chained to the word "theory"--more than 150 years after Charles Darwin published his book Origin of Species--is quite telling.

ALTER2EGO -to- TURN PROPHET:

That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm using real science to expose the outright deception in macroevolution THEORY (not fact). I'm using scientific FACT against what amounts to science FICTION.

My point is that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support the theory of macroevolution.

How can you expect people to take you seriously when you misunderstand terminology that would be understood by a grade schooler?

What do you think of all the fulfilled prophecies as predicted by other religious texts, such as that of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists etc.? Why believe the Bible specifically, when there's so many other religious texts (some with almost equal amount of followers) that have had similar prophecies come true? Aren't they equally likely to be inspired by a God that you know little to nothing about?
You don't believe in hard-science evidence like the irrefutable evidence for evolution that comes from the field of genetics, physiology and biochemistry (molecular variance patterns, DNA sequencing etc.)? How about the evidence for evolution that comes from the study of geographical distribution (of species), or the evidence for evolution that comes from computation and mathematical iteration? or the evidence that comes from paleontology, comparative anatomy, and all the various disciplines within biology?

You don't believe the evidence coming from any of these fields of science or the people that have dedicated their entire lives studying them? Do you truly believe that all the scientists working in these highly complex fields are misguided? I don't think you do.

ALTER2EGO -to- VEEDDZZ:

The Jews read the same Hebrew portion of the Bible that's in the Judeo Christian Bible. In the Judeo-Christian Bible, the Hebrew portion of the Bible is referred to as the "Old Testament." In other words, all of the prophesies that are in the Jewish Bible are in the Judeo-Christian Bible. However, because the Jews reject Jesus Christ and Christianity, their Bible does not have the New Testament, which also contains other prophecies.


The Islamic Koran copied many stories and Biblical characters from the Hebrew portion of the Judeo-Christian Bible. Here is a partial list of characters from the Judeo/Christian Bible that were COPIED into the Islamic Quran. Keep in mind that the Quran was written at least 600 years AFTER the Judeo/Christian Bible.

Abraham, Adam, Cain, David, Elijah, Enoch, Ezra, Gabriel, Gog (Gen 10:2; Ezek 38), Goliath, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Job, Jonah, Lot, Magog (Gen 10:2; Ezek 38), Moses, Noah, Saul, Solomon


Buddhism is a philosophy that does not involve the worship of any god whatsoever. In other words, Buddhism evolves around the ideologies of Buddha who was a real man. Their bible amounts to philosophical ideas. So unless you can tell me which "prophesies" are contained in what amounts to personal philosophies, I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
http://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/d...-bible-IDI023/

ALTER2EGO:
I suggest you go back and read all of my posts in this thread, and then come back and tell me which "irrefutable evidence" you're referring to. I'm actually using scientific evidence to debunk the evolution THEORY (not fact). I quoted several pro-evolution scientists in this thread who came right out and admitted that the fossils do not provide any evidence for macroevolution, because the fossils contain nothing but gaps.

How are you going to collect "variance patterns, DNA sequencing," etc. from animals whose soft tissues no longer exist? In other words all that stuff they dream up in the pro-evolution scientific community--about genetics and physiology--is nothing but speculations and opinions.

The only thing that has survived the thousands of years in the ground are fossilized bones. And none of the fossils of one "species" or type of animal can be linked to that of an entirely different type of creature. That's what the paleontologists have all had to admit—including those that are pro-evolution.

ALTER2EGO:
You're making out as if everybody in the scientific community agrees with the evolution myth.

FYI: There are scientists on both sides of the issue. The scientists that are in delusion continue to insist that all animals, humans, and living things that have ever existed had A SINGLE ANCESTOR. Mind you, they have no physical evidence of this. They then proceed to use trick-phrases such as "microevolution" when all they're talking about is variations of the exact same species of animal, and "species transitions" which likewise refers to variations of the same species of animal.

Meanwhile, the fossils (bones of long dead animals) shows only gaps—meaning no connection from one type or species of animal to another, such as a squirrel evolving into a bat or a whale evolving into a bear (macroevolution). Those were actual Charles Darwin claims that have been debunked by gaps in the fossils.

There never was a conversation between us. Just me pointing out to you that you keep referencing some YEC engineer, pawning him off as if his opinion matters in the slightest. Then you gave some basic definitions, that apparently you didn't understand. You can keep telling yourself that you understand the TOE, but its blatantly obviously you dont have the first clue.

The other day two JWs came into my work and wanted to talk to me etc. We ended up having a 45 min discussion ( I was bored, sue me). Its hilarious how their evolution denial is almost verbatim how this thread has gone.

First step: Quote some creationist
Second step: State that "evolutionists" don't agree on all the principles of the theory, and that science is "man's best guess".
Third step: Completely misunderstand the difference between the colloquial usage of the word theory, and the scientific usage. Hint: claiming that TOE is "only a theory" is a good thing.
Fourth step: Agree that there has been observed "micro evolution" but will deny to the bitter end the usage of the word evolution. Adaptation was their word choice.
Fifth step: Refusal to look at any sort of info talking about observed speciation.
Sixth step: Get mad and start claiming that the TOE doesnt explain how life started on earth furthering display of ignorance.
Seventh step: Tell me that I don't like the idea of there being a God and that I just want to do whatever I want when I want. Proceeding to storm out the door.

So far ITT we are at step 5. Not too long now and we should be hearing about how Atheists are all horrible, and science is "man's best guess".

I would never say Atheists are all horrible.




Heinous seems to be a better fit.

I'm partial to abhorrent.

not sure why i'm even trying again, but here goes

actually the scientific evidence (at least the evidence that i truly understand and study, and not something that i heard or was told), does support "macroevolution" (really a unneeded term). i don't think it proves it (few scientists i talk to actually says it does), but the evidence is consistent with it. so consistent that we are as sure about speciation through evolution as we are that snow in las vegas will melt.

what people can't show is evidence that evolution didn't occur. what they do is claim "gap in the fossil record". absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (so you are not using science to refute evolution).

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture07446.html

Good read imo:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...n-species.html

Absence of evidence = MYTH.

I don't do links. If you want to make a point, quote verbatim a few sentences from your source that are in support of your position. Also identify your source by providing name of scientific paper, name of author, and page number where you quoted from. Links should only be provided in case the other person wants to confirm your quotation.

"Whereas many ancient-DNA studies have used bone samples, in 2007 we showed that DNA with fewer damage-induced substitutions can be extracted from hair shafts collected from permafrost remains. Moreover, use of hair permits a highly efficient decontamination protocol that leaves the keratin-encased endogenous DNA unharmed...Hair shafts are thus suitable for sequencing ancient nuclear DNA."

Nature 456, 387-390 (20 November 2008)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture07446.html

You're welcome.