How are the Christians Going to Discredit..?

Question

The latest fossil finds in Africa adding to the weight of evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to "Intelligent Design"?
Why do they also believe more passionately about things where there is the least scientific evidence to back up up their arguments?

OMG I had no idea there were so many deluded people in the world that couldn't think for themselves. This is really scary.

OK all you passionate (stupid) christians out there prove intelligent design to me then.

My main problem with you people is that you won't even entertain the possibility of evolution being a fact. Even if it were proved beyond a shadow of a doubt you would say the science was wrong. Its called delusion, you'd rather believe fairy stories that no one can prove over scientific fact......yeah yeah you even question what a fact is i heard it all before. I still think you are all dumb

How you can call myths and stories "gruths" is beyond me.

*truths correction

Your fillibuster still didn't answer my question amercomp.
I also find your premise that everything is designed presumptuous. You have no proof that everything is designed You think by quoting psuedo science you will convince other people that you are intelligent and that you know what you are talking about. MORON

OK waycyber how does the evidence for creationism stack up?

No dreamgirl you mistake my hatred of ignorant people like you as hatred of christians. Justify your narrow minded ignorance any way you please.

What have vaseline and dildos got to do with christianity Dreamgirl, please explain?

Answer 1

A Christian once told me that Satan planted that (fossil) evidence to fool people. And, she was serious.

They have an excuse for anything that challenges their addiction.

Answer 2

The evidence for evolution does not stack up. It is a house of cards with huge gaps in the lower levels. It is a fantasy to make spurious connections between observed scientific facts. It is not supported by observation or experimental proof. It requires the existence of factors that patently do not exist and makes false conclusions about factors that do exist. It is the Norwegian Blue of the Scientific world. There is more evidence for cold fusion than evolution.

Answer 3

As a christian and a believer in the creation story I do not discredit nor deny the findings and existence of fossils, nor would any christian scientist. What I do discredit and disbelieve is the assertations as to how long ago the organism of the fossil actually lived as well as its "evolutional" path. Finding the remains of a species or animal that no longer exists does not prove evolution nor does the miscalculation of its age. There are many theories regarding the evolutionary path of species, none of which can be proven through the fossil record and contrary to popular belief there are no transition fossils.

There is much scientific evidence to back up these arguements, the problem is that atheistic scientist and believers of evolution think they can easily dismiss the scientific proofs of a scientist who believes in God because of those religious beliefs.

If at the heart of science it does not discern the beliefs of the individual scientist any more than truth discerns the belief of a person, is it still possible for the beliefs of the person to biasly steer the science into a direction that is more easily believeable based on that scientists personal beliefs? Another words, is it possible that a scientists who doesn't believe in God will produce scientific results based on that basic belief?

Answer 4

Thank for have the honesty to state that the new findings "add weight in favor of evolution" rather that the usual "this one proves everything in science is true and all religion is a lie".

I have been around look enough to watch one scientific "fact" after another be discarded, disproven, corrected, tossed out the windows, etc. When I watched Jurassic Park, the raptors were mini t-rex dinosaurs. How on "Walking with Dinosaurs" they have feathers on their heads and are becoming birds. The raptors have not changed. The scientific "facts" about them have.

When I was in school, the sun gave off light because of gravity that caused it to collapse on itself. Now it gives off the light because it has a nuclear fusion inside it, and gravity is not involved. To the best of my knowledge, the sun has not changed. The scientific "facts" have.

Plus for any theory you can advance, I can find a serious scientist out there who has "proof" of the opposite. Whether it is "black holes" (which they still have not proven exist - they probably do, but they have not "proven" it) to whether men and women are "different" (there are "proves" both way), to whether Pluto is a planet (they can't agree on that one) to whatever....

So everytime somebody comes out with a new "fact" that they just discovered and have not yet had tested, checked, compared with other data and theories, given time to see if it "holds up", etc. , you will forgive me if I do not toss 50+ years of faith, answered prayer, miracles, experiencing God personally, confirming the scriptures, etc. out the window. Because within six months these new "facts"will be changed again. But the truths in my Bible will not have changed.

Answer 5

Prove intelligent design you say. You will first need to determine what you will accept as proof. Since you have already rejected the truth and its proof to you it can not be proven. Yet you can not intellectually and honestly answer this one simple question. Show me one design that didn't start with a mind. Careful because naturally occuring patterns do not indicate design. Nor can a design come from a naturally occuring pattern. Designs always contain patterns, but natural patterns never contain designs or symbols. There is a vast chasm between the most complex natural pattern and the simplest design. All designs start with symbolic representation of ideas through a code, which is always designed by a mind. Nature produces patterns by itself, with no help from a designer:
Weather: Hurricanes & Tornados
Snowflakes, Crystals, Stalagmites, Sand Dunes
Fractals and Chaos
Everyday interactions of matter & energy produce these things
Designs are Always based on language & symbols
Plans: Music, Maps, Instructions
Human languages: English, Chinese, Spanish
Computer languages: HTML, JPG,C++, TCP/IP, USB
DNA
Always require a designer. If designs always require a designer then prove evolution by submitting one single design that came from a pattern and not a designer. This one "stupid" Christian is waiting for you to unleash your moronic brilliance.

Answer 6

Matt d why would Christians have a problem with people finding bones millions of years old. you are obviously on about the old testament and you are not very well read. Read the new testaments they do not agree with the stories and quotes in the old testament. forget science because they are proved wrong so often it is scary. i would rather be convicted by catholic law than scientific law good luck

Answer 7

You are prejudiced against Christians? It sounds like it.

You will find there are Christians who take their Bible, the Pope, their minister,and everything literally---believe it to the word.

You will find most Christians (in England and The USA, partic) who take it, let it filter thru, accept what they want and let the rest go. You just hear about the rants of the Fundamentalists.

So, do not judge Christians as one total group.

Added note to everyone, too: Do not judge Muslims as a whole, either........or anyone else.

Answer 8

OHHHHHHH I see it wasnt me you just hate Christians! Now I get it. This is why you were cussing at me like a tantrum throwing 3 year old. You have obviously judged me as it is in line with your apparent dislike of Christians. And you call us judgemental! Hilarious! God Bless You Anyway!!!!!!

Answer 9

Christians don't have to defend.

You stand as a Christian with whatever convictions and beliefs you have been taught (and that you have weighed out) The Bible says to work out your own salvation.

I don't care if something big walked the earth thousands of years ago. I care about where I am going...

I cant do anything about my past, yours or the "big bang" so I refuse to waste time worrying with it.

No offense

Answer 10

Since this is a "recent" discovery, it has not been examined by non-prejudicial paleontologists. What was the dating method used? I tend to think they simply slapped a date on it based on other "finds". And, I believe, it will fall by the wayside just as other supposed "missing links" have.

"Is there really evidence that man descended from the apes?

These are ones that everyone agrees are not pre-human intermediates between apes and humans.

* Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man)—150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an ‘ape-man’. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.
* Ramapithecus—once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realised that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape).
* Eoanthropus (Piltdown man)—a hoax based on a human skull cap and an orangutan’s jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years.
* Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man)—based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only living in Paraguay.
* Pithecanthropus (Java man)—now renamed to Homo erectus. See below.
* Australopithecus africanus—this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like.
* Sinanthropus (Peking man) was once presented as an ape-man but has now been reclassified as Homo erectus (see below).

Currently fashionable ape-men

These are the ones that adorn the evolutionary trees of today that supposedly led to Homo sapiens from a chimpanzee-like creature.

* Australopithecus—there are various species of these that have been at times proclaimed as human ancestors. One remains: Australopithecus afarensis, popularly known as the fossil ‘Lucy’. However, detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that ‘Lucy’ and her like are not on the way to becoming human. For example, they may have walked more upright than most apes, but not in the human manner. Australopithecus afarensis is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee.
* Homo habilis—there is a growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of various other types—such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is therefore an ‘invalid taxon’. That is, it never existed as such.
* Homo erectus—many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.

Conclusion: There is no fossil evidence that man is the product of evolution. The missing links are still missing because they simply do not exist. The Bible clearly states, “then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” (Genesis 2:7)."

Answer 11

Because scientific data is built in a pyramid fashion and if there is one small false, or unknown fact in that foundational data, then all of the findings are in question.

Science has made some wonderful strides, but quite often when some small piece of data is missing, it is filled in and great leaps are made--calling all the findings into question.

2nd ques. It's simply called faith.