"Evolution isn't science"

jesus_freak said:
Again not that it matters but about 1 Billion more people believe in the God of the bible than any other religion. Making it by far the most common religion in the world, that does not make it a minority!
Click to expand...

JF, it is quite simple.

If it is Christianity vs Everyone Else you lose.

You are the minority. But then it works the same for every other group. Therefore popularity is no indicator of truth. So why do you insist on going round and round on this merry-go-ride?

Plus it's not like every Christian would agree with you about the age of the universe, religion or doctrine. So unless you're Catholic you're a minority within your own group anyway.
 
jesus_freak said:
[if you believe that numbers make things factual, I suggest you consider:

Christianity is a minority belief on Earth.
Click to expand...
anymore LIES? Not that it matters or should change anyones mind but why lie about it?
Major Religions of the World
Ranked by Number of Adherents

(Sizes shown are approximate estimates, and are here mainly for the purpose of ordering the groups, not providing a definitive number. This list is sociological/statistical in perspective.)
  1. Christianity: 2.1 billion
  2. Islam: 1.3 billion
  3. Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
  4. Hinduism: 900 million
  5. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
  6. Buddhism: 376 million
  7. primal-indigenous: 300 million
  8. African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
  9. Sikhism: 23 million
  10. Juche: 19 million
  11. Spiritism: 15 million
  12. Judaism: 14 million
  13. Baha'i: 7 million
  14. Jainism: 4.2 million
  15. Shinto: 4 million
  16. Cao Dai: 4 million
  17. Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
  18. Tenrikyo: 2 million
  19. Neo-Paganism: 1 million
  20. Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
  21. Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
  22. Scientology: 500 thousand
Click to expand...

According to your own figures, yes, Christians are a minority.

You say that 2.1 billion people are Christians.

The world population is about 6 billion.

So non-Christians outnumber Christians about 2 to 1.

As you said:

Not that it matters or should change anyones mind but why lie about it?
Click to expand...

It shouldn't matter, and it shouldn't change anyone's mind. So why are you lying about it?
 
Last edited:
Well, if the flood occured it means that your God:

1). Is not omniscient, because he was "sorry" that he made man. Wouldn't an omniscient being know in advance man would sin?
2). Is a cruel psychopath, because he destroyed the entire world and killed millions--including newborn babies--because some people had sinned.
3). Is impotent, since His flood didn't stop man from starting to sin again almost immediately. Noah got stone drunk; his own son Ham sinned against his father and was cursed. You'd think they would have learned their lesson, witnessing the flood and all, but nooooooooooooooooo.
 
jesus_freak said:
It does make me realize that no matter how hard science tries to push their lies in schools people grow up and think for them selves!
Click to expand...
Wow... Just wow.

I mean, we have just now given you several examples of you -not- thinking for yourself.

For a starters, you obviously weren't thinking for yourself when you presented the misquotation of Darwin. You were just repeating a lie that someone else told you. Because if you had, you would have done the following:

1: Asked yourself if a quote that seems to condemn his own theory is really what it is.
2: Read his actual book with the quote -in context- to see what Darwin actually said.
3: Realised that the people who told you the misquote were lying to you.
4: Realised that you cannot blindly accept what those people tell you just because they agree with your beliefs.

Instead, you only make a half-felt "apology" and continue on as if that doesn't change anything.

And then it gets worse. After being shown that you were misquoting, you respond with -another- misquote of Darwin. I mean, not only should you have followed the four steps ahead, but if you had been thinking, you should be asking yourself "Hmmm, is it possible that these people have also seen -this- quote before, and know the actual context of it?"

Why weren't you thinking that?

Instead, you unthinkingly just put it up, and it too was torn to shreds. One should have thought that you had actually learned a lesson here, if you were doing any real thinking. But instead, you just keep on as if nothing happened.

So, you keep telling that "hard science" is pushing lies. Yet, when you get down to the actual details - as told time and again in this thread - the actual lies are shown to be on the part of the creationists. Misquoting, strawmen, and other forms of lies, and you are falling for them hook, line, and sinker. Just because you are incapable of thinking, and of doing some actual research.

And that, at least, should make you finally start thinking, for once. And please, stop putting up misquotes before you've actually researched the source to see what the author really said. If nothing else, it's such an amateurish lie that it's embarassing to read.
 
Seriously, JF if the world were 10,000 years old and there was a massive die off in a flood 4000 years ago, you'd see some pretty distinct things in the geological record.

1) Absolutely no life below a certain point.
2) Sudden appearance of all forms of life, from bacteria up to and including modern species.
3) All those species all mixed together for a while.
4) A layer of silt and goo covering the entire earth.
5) A very high number of dead things in the silt and goo.
6) A period of almost no animal life, then a gradual buildup of animal life to present levels.

This isn't even remotely close to what is seen in the geological record.
 
jesus_freak said:
My interpretation of the Bible.And yes there are many sources here is one of them.http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=204
Click to expand...

jesus_freak... the article you list... did you look at the sources for the information? Most are sources from the website itself. Those which aren't are from the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

The moon arguments from the article were disproven many years ago. We've since BEEN TO THE MOON!

Don't you think that might provide some new evidence?

Ask yourself this... why do all the creationist sources on young earth always quote sources from many many years ago?
 
jesus_freak said:
Am I wrong in "assuming" that a basic concept of evolution is that all of life has come from a common source?
Click to expand...

Evolution through natural selection is a concept that can apply to any self replicating autonomous population of “things” (life, computer codes, prions, whatever…) assuming that there is some random variation within said population and that the environment (whatever it may be) is changing. So whether life evolved once or multiple times is not the issue at hand, evolution is, and that concept can be applied to many things. One can gain an understanding of the basics of evolution through natural selection without even mentioning life.
 
1) Absolutely no life below a certain point.
2) Sudden appearance of all forms of life, from bacteria up to and including modern species.
3) All those species all mixed together for a while.
4) A layer of silt and goo covering the entire earth.
5) A very high number of dead things in the silt and goo.
6) A period of almost no animal life, then a gradual buildup of animal life to present levels.
Click to expand...
1)
Population Growth Estimates

Growth of world population during various epochs of earth history can be calculated by a well-known formula:


popform.gif
In this formula Pn is the population after n generations beginning with one man and one woman; n is the number of generations---found by dividing the total time period by the number of years per generation.

The variable x can be thought of as the number of generations that are alive when P(n) is evaluated. Therefore, if x is 2, the generations that are alive are generations n and n-1. This means that only a generation and its parents are alive. It seems reasonable to choose x = 3 most of the time. Taking x = 3 means that when P(n) is evaluated generations n, n-1, and n-2 are all alive.

C is half the number of children in the family. If each family has only two children, the population growth rate is zero, but a reasonable and conservative number of children per family is 2.1 to 2.5 as far as historical records are concerned. (The derivation of the above equation has been added as Note A at the end of this article).

Allowing for famine, disease, war, and disaster, a few sample calculations will show that the earth's population could have easily reached several billions of people between the time of Adam and the time of the flood. It is even quite possible that the preflood population was much higher than it is now.
 
jesus_freak said:
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=qw968787420149B251
Click to expand...

This is not a worldwide flood. This is one of many local floods for which there is evidence in the geologic and archaeological and historical record.

The fact that this was an especially dramatic flood and that it occurred in the Mediterranean has led many people to speculate that it may have inspired the Noah myth. Some people even wonder if possibly some guy did build a boat and put his farm animals on it and rode out the flood that way. The truth is that this is all speculative guessing, like the thought that there may have been an actual woman named Helen that went to Troy.
 
jesus_freak said:
1)
Allowing for famine, disease, war, and disaster, a few sample calculations will show that the earth's population could have easily reached several billions of people between the time of Adam and the time of the flood. It is even quite possible that the preflood population was much higher than it is now.
Click to expand...

Wow. You really know math... or can just copy/paste well...

Uh, simple question before we start the graph blooming upward.

Where did Cain get a wife?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom