Evos pushers. Why didn't you tell us Darwin cursed GOD?

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
I have posted Darwin in his own words cursing God. Also notice the bifurcated religionists who straddle Darwinism and "Christianity" for some reason also are dead silent. Because "cursing God" has no bearing on the validity of evolution.

Darwin hated God and tried to fabricate a godless creation.

“I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”

I had gradually come by this time, [i.e. 1836 to 1839] to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian.

But troo disciples of Darwin want us to trust materialism and Darwinism. Darwin's "sacred werks"
 
I have posted Darwin in his own words cursing God. Also notice the bifurcated religionists who straddle Darwinism and "Christianity" for some reason also are dead silent. Because "cursing God" has no bearing on the validity of evolution.
...
As you say, because "cursing God" has no bearing on the validity of evolution.

Evolution is thought to be true because of the overwhelming evidence from genetics, the fossil record, biochemistry, etc., and, with regards to an old earth, from all of geology and astronomer.

Science is not concerned with the personal beliefs of the scientist. Newton had all sorts of crackpot ideas and religion and alchemy, but he also had some very good ideas. Science adopted the good ones, and ignored the bad.
 
As you say, because "cursing God" has no bearing on the validity of evolution.
False. Totally false.

It was behind his motives to fabricate evo stories which you fall for,


Evolution is thought to be true because of the overwhelming evidence from genetics, the fossil record, biochemistry, etc., and, with regards to an old earth, from all of geology and astronomer.
In your fevered imaginations
Science is not concerned with the personal beliefs of the scientist. Newton had all sorts of crackpot ideas and religion and alchemy, but he also had some very good ideas. Science adopted the good ones, and ignored the bad.
 
False. Totally false.
That is what YOU said in your OP!

It was behind his motives to fabricate evo stories which you fall for,
Doubtful; he was still a Christian then.

But what if it was true? The point is he did real science, found real evidence to support his claims. And over 150 years of biology since then has only served to confirm that he was broadly right.

In your fevered imaginations
No, in science.
 
Evolution is thought to be true because of the overwhelming evidence from genetics, the fossil record, biochemistry, etc., and, with regards to an old earth, from all of geology and astronomer.
Some people ...like you...are blind to the overwhelming evidence that shows evo-ism is nothing but Bravo Sierra.

Will you ever show how an assembly line of organelle can developed by random chance and natural selection?
 
Some people ...like you...are blind to the overwhelming evidence that shows evo-ism is nothing but Bravo Sierra.
And yet hundreds of thousands of biologists across the world, with any number of different faiths and no faith, are convinced it is true.

Why is it that over 99% of biologists - the people most familiar with the evidence - believe evolution is true? Because of the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

Seems to me it is you who is blinded. Seems to me it is you who is full of it.

Will you ever show how an assembly line of organelle can developed by random chance and natural selection?
I think we will, as we discussed before.

It is kind of sad how you cling to this one thing that evolution cannot explain - yet - as though this invalidates all that overwhelming evidence showing evolution is true.
 
Why is it that over 99% of biologists - the people most familiar with the evidence - believe evolution is true?
It's what they were force fed in school....and reply had no choice but to believe it.

Once people hear what really happened....they often change or say..."wow, I never heard that." Some people like you hold onto your faith in evo-ism blindly and still can't explain how organelle assembly lines could have evolved or explain away the great sandstone deposits across the world...and lets not forget the biomaterial found in 65+ MY old fossils. Basically you're afraid of there being a creator.

Oh, I don't believe your 99% number.
 
It's what they were force fed in school....and reply had no choice but to believe it.
Who told you that? Why do you blindly believe them?

The simple fact is that the whole of biology only make sense in the light of evolution - and science demands a framework that makes sense. Biologists publish papers within an evolutionary framework because it works.

Furthermore, any scientist would love to overthrow the prevailing theory - that is the stuff that Nobel prizes are made of. Even if you are right - and they certainly are taught it in schools - the simple fact is that through university and their entire careers over 99% of biologists continue to believe evolution is true.

And these are the people who know the evidence and understand the theory far better than you or I.

Once people hear what really happened....they often change or say..."wow, I never heard that." Some people like you hold onto your faith in evo-ism blindly and still can't explain how organelle assembly lines could have evolved or explain away the great sandstone deposits across the world...and lets not forget the biomaterial found in 65+ MY old fossils. Basically you're afraid of there being a creator.
And some people like you hold on to your faith in creationism blindly.

Basically you're afraid of there being no creator.

Oh, I don't believe your 99% number.
It is derived from the Project Steve. About 1% of the world's population is called Steve, or a derived name. There are 1479 biologists called Steve who have signed a statement saying they accept evolution. This is compared to a similar number of people who have signed the DI's dissent from evolution statement, however, that includes engineers, dentists, etc.

On that basis I think over 99% is a good estimate.

Oh, I don't believe your 99% number.
Of course not, because it does not fit what you want to be true.

What figure do you think is more reasonable? What is your evidence?
 
Who told you that? Why do you blindly believe them?

I've been to school. I know people in school.

The only time the truth is presented is when a student presents flood geology.
The simple fact is that the whole of biology only make sense in the light of evolution - and science demands a framework that makes sense. Biologists publish papers within an evolutionary framework because it works.
LOL...sure it does.
Furthermore, any scientist would love to overthrow the prevailing theory - that is the stuff that Nobel prizes are made of. Even if you are right - and they certainly are taught it in schools - the simple fact is that through university and their entire careers over 99% of biologists continue to believe evolution is true.
If you even bring it up..you're thrown out. Kinda like how a doctor is thrown out for bringing up the clot shot.
And these are the people who know the evidence and understand the theory far better than you or I.
So, because of that I should believe in evolutionism???? Seriously???
And some people like you hold on to your faith in creationism blindly.

Blindly? Now you're grasping as straws...In the previous post I Brough up 3 quick issues.....organelle, sandstones and biomaterial...and you accuse me of holding onto creation/flood science blindly?
Basically you're afraid of there being no creator.


It is derived from the Project Steve. About 1% of the world's population is called Steve, or a derived name. There are 1479 biologists called Steve who have signed a statement saying they accept evolution. This is compared to a similar number of people who have signed the DI's dissent from evolution statement, however, that includes engineers, dentists, etc.

On that basis I think over 99% is a good estimate.

So, you follow the crowd blindly.....OK, you're entitled to do that.
Of course not, because it does not fit what you want to be true.

What figure do you think is more reasonable? What is your evidence?
Will you explain how organelle form assembly lines?
 
I've been to school. I know people in school.
Well good for you.

The only time the truth is presented is when a student presents flood geology.
In your opinion, anyway.

Back in reality, there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. That is why over 99% of biologists believe evolution is true.

LOL...sure it does.
Great so we agree.

If you even bring it up..you're thrown out. Kinda like how a doctor is thrown out for bringing up the clot shot.
If you bring it up and present evidence to support your claim, then people will listen.

Creationists cannot do that. All they have in the Biblical text and a bunch of lame arguments that supposedly disprove evolution. Where is the evidence for creationism? I mean, outside the Bible...

Just look how often you trot out the organelle. Why not bring up the evidence that supports your world, rather than the evidence that supposedly refute mine? Because you have none.

So, because of that I should believe in evolutionism???? Seriously???
Because of the overwhelming evidence you should seriously believe evolution.

Blindly? Now you're grasping as straws...In the previous post I Brough up 3 quick issues.....organelle, sandstones and biomaterial...and you accuse me of holding onto creation/flood science blindly?
Yes, I accuse you of holding to creationism blindly. Have you researched these at all? Pick one, and start a new thread, presenting the evidence as you understand. Then we can see if this is something you have actually thought through, or merely buzzwords you have picked up from other creationists.

So, you follow the crowd blindly.....OK, you're entitled to do that.
The issue is the figure of 99% of biologists accepting evolution. I have said why I believe that to be a fair figure.

I then challenged you to provide another figure, and to support that. Clearly you cannot. Why is that? Because you just blindly believe what you are told to believe.

Will you explain how organelle form assembly lines?
See this thread:

Science so far cannot say exactly how the organelles evolved, but all the research in this area is done by biologists who believe evolution is true. No one is research how God created the organelle, because creationism is a dead end.
 
If so, why can't you explain assembly lines of organelle. It should be easy peasy.......After all you have OVERWHELMING evidence.
Why can't you explain, in detail, how the Intelligent Designer constructed assembly lines of organelle. It should be easy peasy...
 
If so, why can't you explain assembly lines of organelle. It should be easy peasy.......After all you have OVERWHELMING evidence.
So you ignored pretty much all I wrote, just to trot out organelles again? See, this is what I mean about just blindly believing it. As soon as the conversation goes off script, you are floored, and have to revert to your usual sound bite.

You said: "Oh, I don't believe your 99% number." Why not? What number do you believe? Why do you think your number is right?

You have no clue! You are unable to discuss the issue because you have been told to think the 99% number is wrong, and you do so blindly. It is sad to see, it really is.

I suggested you start a thread to discuss the three topics you raised that you claim support your position. Have you done so? Of course not! They are just soundbites you have been told to regurgitate. You have no clue what the issues are behind them; you just blindly believe what you are told to believe.
 
Why can't you explain, in detail, how the Intelligent Designer constructed assembly lines of organelle. It should be easy peasy...
Well, you can start out by acknowledging intelligent design was required as random chance and mutations certainly can'y evolve an assembly line of organelle.
 
Back
Top