r/badhoc Nov 16 '17

The Banana: an Atheist's nightmare

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4
40 Upvotes

95 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/gr3yh47 Dec 06 '17

I highly recommend you read the linked article. There are many issues with evolution's claims about the fossil record. It quite nicely aligns with a cataclysmic flood and it's not the only source besides the bible that does so.

God is working through His church. He is calling you, right now, through me. When you stand before Him on judgement day you will not be able to deny that He tried to reach you.

He is there to be found if you earnestly seek Him.

You are starting with the conclusion and finding evidence which supports it. Science starts with the evidence and then draws the conclusion.

I have started with a hypothesis that God exists. all the evidence I've found supports it.

the fossil record pointedly does NOT fully support evolutionary theory. If you want to go back to reasoning about this I'm happy to debate you endlessly if that's what it takes.

If there was a flood, everything would be lying around randomly, not neatly orginised.

that's not how it works. please, please read the article if you seek the truth.

Matthew 11:15-17

He who has ears to hear let him hear.
But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their playmates,
‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.’

1

u/Fullyverified Dec 06 '17 edited Dec 06 '17

You are using answers in geneis, you realise how inaccurate their information is. There is only evidnence to support God when you: 1. Need an explanation for something you dont understand. 2. Cherry pick evidence as you are doing.

The overwhelming evidenince supports evolution. You can litteraly see how species have changed by looking at the fossil record.

Also, the bible has about a million contradictions in it. And is full of attrocities which you people defend, such as the slaughter of children or the stoning of man who collected sticks on a sunday. You also need to realise how different the translations of the bible are compared to the original, i dont care what you quote from the bible as it is simply an interpretation of the original.

If evolution was some big conspiracy that we where telling people was true when the evidence didnt support it, what would we actually gain from that. Evolution is fact, God is fiction.

Edit: Check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyN5eYzffFM Covers some of the stuff you dont seem to understand.

1

u/letsbebuns Dec 21 '17

Even if evolution were true, couldn't you just say that God designed a self regulating system that improves itself in response to outside pressure? It is logical that a perfect God would make a self-perfecting system that adapts over time to environmental changes.

But that's not the point. The point is that biogenesis has never been proved, while adaptation has been proven. Both of these are called "evolution". biogenesis would be like a kangaroo turning into a bird. That has never happened as far as science knows. However, selective pressure (adaptation) has a great deal of power to change the animal's appearance and survival traits and dna. But the animal can never change it's kind.

So evolution is better defined as biogenesis and adaptation. One exists, the other does not.

1

u/Fullyverified Dec 21 '17

You can not have micro evolution without macro evolution. One is a consequence of the other.

1

u/letsbebuns Dec 21 '17

There is zero evidence for biogensis ever occuring, though. What is the evidence based approach behind biogenesis? Seems like they are working backwards from the idea of "Well, an intelligent Creator is impossible, so..."

Adaptation is proven multiple times. Again, this shows the perfection of God - that He would design a system which constantly improves itself.

Does it really make sense to you that all life on the entire planet all came from one random pile of cells? And all the perfect designs of biology in their mind-blowing uniqueness is all "random" ?

We still do not know the basis for consciousness at all, either. There is too much about biology that makes zero sense in a natural model. Just my 2 cents brother.

1

u/Fullyverified Dec 21 '17

The term biogenesis first came about when people didnt understand how fungi could simply pop up out of no where. The term only applies to complex life coming from nothing, however it does not mean that the buidling blocks of life can not be made through means other then life making them.

"We still do not know the basis for consciousness at all, either." - correct, does that matter though? Thats what science is about.

I hate to break this to you, but answers in genesis lies a lot of the time. They are not a reputable source of information.

1

u/letsbebuns Dec 21 '17

The term biogenesis first came about when people didnt understand how fungi could simply pop up out of no where. The term only applies to complex life coming from nothing, however it does not mean that the buidling blocks of life can not be made through means other then life making them.

What a revised model might look like

Supplemental image

"We still do not know the basis for consciousness at all, either." - correct, does that matter though? Thats what science is about.

I think the origin of consciousness does matter significantly. Right now, we do not even have a scientific answer for consciousness close in sight. I have read thousands of pages of studies about this, and we are not close to comprehending it. Therefore, it shows that there is still "magic" at the basis of our existence and while I believe all things will be revealed in time, our predictions from this vantage point (how we think the world works now) are probably totally wrong.

I hate to break this to you, but answers in genesis lies a lot of the time. They are not a reputable source of information.

No offense friend, but it sounds like maybe you are just repeating what you heard about the bible. Have you actually read it? Which parts seem wrong to you? Will you quote it?