Why Evolution is Wrong and What is Right?

You’re being clear this time but like I indicated earlier, there’s no conflict between the Bible and the DNA evidence you cited.
How do I know that? You have not provided us with any DNA evidence. We know that such evidence can be found because we have evidence in DNA of a narrow genetic bottleneck in cheetah DNA, down to a single family of cheetahs about 10,000 years ago.

All I am asking you to do is to provide similar evidence of a narrow bottleneck about 4,500 years ago in kangaroos and armadillos.
 
How do I know that? You have not provided us with any DNA evidence. We know that such evidence can be found because we have evidence in DNA of a narrow genetic bottleneck in cheetah DNA, down to a single family of cheetahs about 10,000 years ago.

All I am asking you to do is to provide similar evidence of a narrow bottleneck about 4,500 years ago in kangaroos and armadillos.
You’re obviously not genuinely looking for information otherwise you would have taken into consideration your scandalous evolutionary dating method that I showed you.
In fact, it would appear you’re already aware of the inconsistencies and incongruities there but just don’t wanna talk about them
 
Never mind that but Let me help.
Common knowledge is enough to remedy nonsense, so there’s really no “refuting” necessary
Very true, but as your notion of "common sense" appears to be "delusions believed by a tiny number of left-behind nonentities who cannot accept advances in science.", you are not really in a position to comment further.
It’s like how do you refute, “blah blah blah” (eg someone who says evolution is science)
See above, case proved. You wouldn't know common sense if it bit you.
Obviously you’ve been indoctrinated by popular science texts—a little truth and lot of nonsense
Obviously, hundreds of thousands or research projects, PhD theses, experiments, expeditions and journal entries over the past 150 years in biology, geology, meteorology, paleontology, physics chemistry and ethnology, are all just an elaborate scam to make you look silly. If so, it worked.
Pop science texts were written to sell. You can’t sell books to evolutionists and atheist without flattering their sensitivities.
Serious scientific research is done to answer questions about reality. Answers with predictive power are deemed successful, and attract more funding. The incentive in science is to get it right, not to snub noses at inconsequential intellectual misfits.
Besides, atheists and practical atheists have hyjacked the educational establishments and, of course, will buy books that promote their bias.
Any more sour grapes? Is the whole of reality just conspiring to make you look ridiculous? No, you manage that by yourself. Reality couldn't care less whether you accept the truth, and frankly, neither do I.
You don’t understand specific

Ok what would that look like specifically
Oh come now, a great brain like yours and you don't know this? That is the point, you don't know. You are making assertions DNA shows tyhisDNA shows that. Well if DNA shows a generic bottleneck for all species at the same time (as it must, if the Flood story is true,) then you will have no difficulty in showing it. Hint: it is something to do with the available alleles per locus
Of course it did

The earth abounds with evidence for a worldwide flood.
Your problem is not lack of evidence or science but bad interpretations of the evidence.
No. Firstly I have no problem. Secondly your problem is that you claim the earth abounds with evidence, but you are incapable of producing any. Meanwhile geology, physics, and biology abounds with evidence that not only did the Flood not happen but also that it is impossible for it to have happened.
Your leaders cook up a batch of false information and feed it to you and you
gobble it all down. No curiosity or question, just swallow whatever your leaders put in front of you.
You are practising your insults in the mirror again. I have loads of curiosity about how the real world works, which is probably why I have such a better grasp of it than you have.
You’re just trying to turn attention away from all the contrary facts against evolution
As there are none, this would be pointless.
Of course it does. That’s why evolution is so unbelievable
What is unbelievable is that a partially educated man like yourself in the 21st century is unable to accept the reality of evolution.
Wow, you don’t say.
Sadly evolution theories die young. Too bad they have such short life spans.
Wonder why evolutionists don’t say much about that⁉️⁉️ They just invent a newer explanations to cover up the defunct ones
Wrong. Evolution theories expand, gaining explanatory power as more information comes in. The basic underlying theories that species evolve due to natural selection is not just undiminished but unassailable.
Wow, that’s profound‼️?
Not every thing you don't understand is profound.
But you keep saying that as if trying to convince yourself.
I'm not even trying to convince you. I just lay the truth out there.
If you’re going to teach that stuff with confidence you must fully believe it and you obviously don’t
Your mind reading is as rubbish as everything else you do.
Why hasn’t someone shown that then.

All I see are interpretations of the evidence and evolutionists refer to their false interpretations as science. But they’re not fooling everyone

More opinionated statements based not on science but on bigoted interpretations of the evidence
If Dunning-Kruger had met you before publishing, they would have named their theory after you.
Yes but evolutionists aren’t reasonable to begin with (that’s why they believe in evolution) and you can’t reason with ‘em‼️‼️????
You certainly cannot reason with anyone, which is why you are reduced to silly emoji is like a spoilt teenager.
Yes, from one who believes in the myth of evolution
No one with a functioning cerebral cortex thinks that evolution is a myth.
 
I am a logical thinker. Since one entity cannot be both A and not-A, then the resolution is to split that entity into two separate entities, one with property A, and the other with property not-A.

That gives us two separate Jesuses, firstly Jesus-as-God who is eternal and immortal, and secondly Jesus-as-man who is not eternal, was born and died in the way that humans do.

Those two different Jesuses are not the same because the same entity cannot both be immortal and mortal, as you correctly point out.
Your responses keep providing more proof of how out of touch you are with applying logic and critical analysis to arguments. You fail to understand even the most basic of logical laws like the law of non-contradiction.

As your posts demonstrate, you can’t even assemble a sound logical syllogism, perhaps you don’t know what that is

But all of that escapes you because your worldview, which includes Buddhism and evolution (a mutual romance of escapism) prevents you from thinking rationally
 
Very true, but as your notion of "common sense" appears to be "delusions believed by a tiny number of left-behind nonentities who cannot accept advances in science.", you are not really in a position to comment further.

See above, case proved. You wouldn't know common sense if it bit you.

Obviously, hundreds of thousands or research projects, PhD theses, experiments, expeditions and journal entries over the past 150 years in biology, geology, meteorology, paleontology, physics chemistry and ethnology, are all just an elaborate scam to make you look silly. If so, it worked.

Serious scientific research is done to answer questions about reality. Answers with predictive power are deemed successful, and attract more funding. The incentive in science is to get it right, not to snub noses at inconsequential intellectual misfits.

Any more sour grapes? Is the whole of reality just conspiring to make you look ridiculous? No, you manage that by yourself. Reality couldn't care less whether you accept the truth, and frankly, neither do I.

Oh come now, a great brain like yours and you don't know this? That is the point, you don't know. You are making assertions DNA shows tyhisDNA shows that. Well if DNA shows a generic bottleneck for all species at the same time (as it must, if the Flood story is true,) then you will have no difficulty in showing it. Hint: it is something to do with the available alleles per locus

No. Firstly I have no problem. Secondly your problem is that you claim the earth abounds with evidence, but you are incapable of producing any. Meanwhile geology, physics, and biology abounds with evidence that not only did the Flood not happen but also that it is impossible for it to have happened.

You are practising your insults in the mirror again. I have loads of curiosity about how the real world works, which is probably why I have such a better grasp of it than you have.

As there are none, this would be pointless.

What is unbelievable is that a partially educated man like yourself in the 21st century is unable to accept the reality of evolution.

Wrong. Evolution theories expand, gaining explanatory power as more information comes in. The basic underlying theories that species evolve due to natural selection is not just undiminished but unassailable.

Not every thing you don't understand is profound.

I'm not even trying to convince you. I just lay the truth out there.

Your mind reading is as rubbish as everything else you do.

If Dunning-Kruger had met you before publishing, they would have named their theory after you.


No one with a functioning cerebral cortex thinks that evolution is a myth.
 
Your responses keep providing more proof of how out of touch you are with applying logic and critical analysis to arguments. You fail to understand even the most basic of logical laws like the law of non-contradiction.

As your posts demonstrate, you can’t even assemble a sound logical syllogism, perhaps you don’t know what that is

But all of that escapes you because your worldview, which includes Buddhism and evolution (a mutual romance of escapism) prevents you from thinking rationally
Says the person whose only accomplishment is accusing everyone he speaks to of the exact same faults he displays himself.
 
Very true, but as your notion of "common sense" appears to be "delusions believed by a tiny number of left-behind nonentities who cannot accept advances in science.", you are not really in a position to comment further.

See above, case proved. You wouldn't know common sense if it bit you.

Obviously, hundreds of thousands or research projects, PhD theses, experiments, expeditions and journal entries over the past 150 years in biology, geology, meteorology, paleontology, physics chemistry and ethnology, are all just an elaborate scam to make you look silly. If so, it worked.

Serious scientific research is done to answer questions about reality. Answers with predictive power are deemed successful, and attract more funding. The incentive in science is to get it right, not to snub noses at inconsequential intellectual misfits.

Any more sour grapes? Is the whole of reality just conspiring to make you look ridiculous? No, you manage that by yourself. Reality couldn't care less whether you accept the truth, and frankly, neither do I.

Oh come now, a great brain like yours and you don't know this? That is the point, you don't know. You are making assertions DNA shows tyhisDNA shows that. Well if DNA shows a generic bottleneck for all species at the same time (as it must, if the Flood story is true,) then you will have no difficulty in showing it. Hint: it is something to do with the available alleles per locus

No. Firstly I have no problem. Secondly your problem is that you claim the earth abounds with evidence, but you are incapable of producing any. Meanwhile geology, physics, and biology abounds with evidence that not only did the Flood not happen but also that it is impossible for it to have happened.

You are practising your insults in the mirror again. I have loads of curiosity about how the real world works, which is probably why I have such a better grasp of it than you have.

As there are none, this would be pointless.

What is unbelievable is that a partially educated man like yourself in the 21st century is unable to accept the reality of evolution.

Wrong. Evolution theories expand, gaining explanatory power as more information comes in. The basic underlying theories that species evolve due to natural selection is not just undiminished but unassailable.

Not every thing you don't understand is profound.

I'm not even trying to convince you. I just lay the truth out there.

Your mind reading is as rubbish as everything else you do.

If Dunning-Kruger had met you before publishing, they would have named their theory after you.


No one with a functioning cerebral cortex thinks that evolution is a myth.
@DaGeo .What happened to post #305? Did words fail you? Or were you trying to report it as too difficult to deal with? Kind of you to bump my post though.
 
You’re obviously not genuinely looking for information otherwise you would have taken into consideration your scandalous evolutionary dating method that I showed you.
In fact, it would appear you’re already aware of the inconsistencies and incongruities there but just don’t wanna talk about them
Thank you for confirming that you have no scientific evidence to show us.

Your responses keep providing more proof of how out of touch you are with applying logic and critical analysis to arguments. You fail to understand even the most basic of logical laws like the law of non-contradiction.
It is a contradiction to say that Jesus is both a man and God. Men all die; God cannot die. That is a logical contradiction.
 
It is a contradiction to say that Jesus is both a man and God. Men all die; God cannot die. That is a logical contradiction.
It's not a contradiction if you understand that due to the incarnation God began to exist in 2 distinct ways, as God in human form and God as he has always been. God died in his human form, not in his divine form. As a human, God was born, lived a normal human life, died a cruel death, and was resurrected. God in his divine form is spirit and did not experience birth, death, or resurrection.
 
It's not a contradiction if you understand that due to the incarnation God began to exist in 2 distinct ways, as God in human form and God as he has always been.
As I said, that is two separate, distinct Jesuses. One Jesus died, the other Jesus did not. Since, by the law of the excluded middle, one single Jesus cannot both die and not die, then there are two separate Jesuses, not one.

God died in his human form, not in his divine form.
That gives us Jesus-as-man and Jesus-as-God. Two different entities with different sets of properties. It is no wonder Christianity has had such difficulty defining the nature of Jesus: Arian, Nestorian, monophysite, dyophysite etc. They are all attempts to reconcile two incompatible things.

The Jewish or Muslim approaches to Jesus avoid those problems.
 
As I said, that is two separate, distinct Jesuses. One Jesus died, the other Jesus did not. Since, by the law of the excluded middle, one single Jesus cannot both die and not die, then there are two separate Jesuses, not one.


That gives us Jesus-as-man and Jesus-as-God. Two different entities with different sets of properties. It is no wonder Christianity has had such difficulty defining the nature of Jesus: Arian, Nestorian, monophysite, dyophysite etc. They are all attempts to reconcile two incompatible things.

The Jewish or Muslim approaches to Jesus avoid those problems.
One Jesus, two distinct modes of existence. Death is of the human body not the soul/spirit. The soul/spirit leaves the body at death. If the spirit/soul ceased to exist at death, I would have a problem with it also.

As for the "how" of the incarnation, they are all theories. Who can really know how it happened but God. We all speculate.

The Jewish and Muslim approaches to Jesus deny that Jesus is God. How does that deal with the problem?
 
Was that the post abut the transmission of the NT texts? I was hoping for a response to that also.
No. It was a nasty piece of work, full of insults and nothing else. Just trolling basically. It's gone now, hence the thanks.

I hadn't even noticed that the other post had gone! All part of the same conversation, I guess. I'm sorry you were reading it. I tend to let myself go with that particular poster.
 
Last edited:
One Jesus, two distinct modes of existence.
That is still two distinct Jesuses. One Jesus died, the other Jesus did not die. It is not logically possible both to die and not die simultaneously. You can have one or the other, but not both.

Whenever something has two opposite properties it can always be analysed into two different parts. A chessboard is both black and not-black. That is because a chessboard is a compound of black squares and not-black squares. Similarly the Christian Jesus is a compound entity, analysable into a separate human part and a non-human part.

Death is of the human body not the soul/spirit. The soul/spirit leaves the body at death. If the spirit/soul ceased to exist at death, I would have a problem with it also.
That means that Jesus was human, not God. Jesus's body died and His soul continued, as with any other human.

The Jewish and Muslim approaches to Jesus deny that Jesus is God. How does that deal with the problem?
Jesus was a human being, either a failed Messiah or a Prophet. There is no problem because Jesus was a human being, not divine. There is no more problem with Jesus dying than with King Solomon dying. Both were human and both died, as humans do.
 
Thank you for confirming that you have no scientific evidence to show us.
How long have I been on here?
But you’re still not catching on, so let me spell it out for you. I’m not here to convince you of anything.
You seem to think I care what you think.

Don’t feel bad, you’re not the only unobservant one.

I don’t want to seem offensive, but all I care about is watching your false beliefs implode and believe me, you’ve provided a great deal of entertainment for me but most importantly, you keep proving that there remains no reliable opposition against belief in the true God of the Bible and for that I’m grateful.
It is a contradiction to say that Jesus is both a man and God. Men all die; God cannot die. That is a logical contradiction.
Once again, your lack of logic, as I’ve demonstrated on so many occasions, proves that you can hardly assemble even a sensible opinion against the Bible but worse yet, you can’t even provide a modicum of validation or corroboration for what you believe.
 
Last edited:
One Jesus, two distinct modes of existence. Death is of the human body not the soul/spirit.
The soul and spirit are not the same thing. "The spirit returns to God who gave it", but the soul lives only while the breath of life is in the body. The soul doesn't exist when the spirit or breath of life leaves the body. It didn't exist until God breathed the breath of life into the body which is when the bible states that Adam became "a living soul".
 
Back
Top