Ben Carson responds to an atheist

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
An atheist told Dr. Carson that because he believed in God, he was a moron. The good Doctor answered,,,;


“I believe I came from God, and YOU believe you came from a monkey, and you’ve convinced me you’re right.”

:th_lmao:
 

Doc

Administrator
Staff member
An atheist told Dr. Carson that because he believed in God, he was a moron. The good Doctor answered,,,;


“I believe I came from God, and YOU believe you came from a monkey, and you’ve convinced me you’re right.”

:th_lmao:
:clap: :clap: :clap: I love Dr. Ben Carson!!!!!!!
 

Rudi

Active member
LOL

Don't necessarily agree with calling humans monkeys, we are the same genome, similar but certainly not the same.
 

mla2ofus

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
LOL

Don't necessarily agree with calling humans monkeys, we are the same genome, similar but certainly not the same.
Oh, I don't know about that. Do you know what a group of baboons is called? A congress!!
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
the original christians....the catholics support evolution....
Yes, we Catholics do believe that things evolve. We also believe that we were created by God and not from a monkey. The two thoughts can live simultaneously, in harmony.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doc

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
the catholics also admit that the gospels are anonymous
Like the "barn" thingy, you have yet to back your claims with any evidence, linky, proof.

Evolution is still considered a theory. Darwin himself had doubts of it's validity.



The Evidence Darwin Says is Necessary to Prove the Theory is Does not Exist​

At this writing, it is 2010, over one hundred and fifty years later. If the evidence to support Charles Darwin’s theory was going to be found, it would have been found by now. Evolutionists are always looking for evidence to support their faith in evolution.

Some even go so far as to make fraudulent proof for evolution. See my website page: Evolution Frauds. As I say on that page, if there was real evidence, fraudulent evidence would not be needed.

This book is promoted as the bible for evolution but it actually has evidence against evolution, in my opinion. I’ll quote a few excerpts from Chapter Six: “Difficulties on the Theory” and Chapter Nine: “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record”.


Darwin Admitted it is Absurd to Believe that the Eye Could have been Formed by Natural Selection:​

“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”
Back to Top

Darwin Expected Innumerable Transitional Forms, but they Do not Exist​

Here is what I consider the most important excerpt of the book:

“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”
 
Last edited:

MICKYJ

Member
Like the "barn" thingy, you have yet to back your claims with any evidence, linky, proof.

Evolution is still considered a theory. Darwin himself had doubts of it's validity.



The Evidence Darwin Says is Necessary to Prove the Theory is Does not Exist​

At this writing, it is 2010, over one hundred and fifty years later. If the evidence to support Charles Darwin’s theory was going to be found, it would have been found by now. Evolutionists are always looking for evidence to support their faith in evolution.

Some even go so far as to make fraudulent proof for evolution. See my website page: Evolution Frauds. As I say on that page, if there was real evidence, fraudulent evidence would not be needed.

This book is promoted as the bible for evolution but it actually has evidence against evolution, in my opinion. I’ll quote a few excerpts from Chapter Six: “Difficulties on the Theory” and Chapter Nine: “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record”.


Darwin Admitted it is Absurd to Believe that the Eye Could have been Formed by Natural Selection:​


Back to Top

Darwin Expected Innumerable Transitional Forms, but they Do not Exist​

Here is what I consider the most important excerpt of the book:
THE .....THEORY OF EVOLUTION......IS A SCIENTIFIC agreement based on information available
CONFLATE MUCH........DEFINE A "THEORY" IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD....
DARWIN was limited by technology
he work has been surpassed logarithmically
just as einstein expanded and corrected NEWTON.......I THINK I AM JUST GOING TO LOVE YOU....
 

MICKYJ

Member
Like the "barn" thingy, you have yet to back your claims with any evidence, linky, proof.

Evolution is still considered a theory. Darwin himself had doubts of it's validity.



The Evidence Darwin Says is Necessary to Prove the Theory is Does not Exist​

At this writing, it is 2010, over one hundred and fifty years later. If the evidence to support Charles Darwin’s theory was going to be found, it would have been found by now. Evolutionists are always looking for evidence to support their faith in evolution.

Some even go so far as to make fraudulent proof for evolution. See my website page: Evolution Frauds. As I say on that page, if there was real evidence, fraudulent evidence would not be needed.

This book is promoted as the bible for evolution but it actually has evidence against evolution, in my opinion. I’ll quote a few excerpts from Chapter Six: “Difficulties on the Theory” and Chapter Nine: “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record”.


Darwin Admitted it is Absurd to Believe that the Eye Could have been Formed by Natural Selection:​


Back to Top

Darwin Expected Innumerable Transitional Forms, but they Do not Exist​

Here is what I consider the most important excerpt of the book:
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
THE .....THEORY OF EVOLUTION......IS A SCIENTIFIC agreement based on information available
CONFLATE MUCH........DEFINE A "THEORY" IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD....
DARWIN was limited by technology
he work has been surpassed logarithmically
just as einstein expanded and corrected NEWTON.......I THINK I AM JUST GOING TO LOVE YOU....

Still nothing but your own prose on the subject.
I would point out that "scientific consensus" is not the same as "Scientific Fact."

You speak as though your words were in fact,,,; factual.
I think many here would be interested in knowing on what authority you speak.
 

MICKYJ

Member
Still nothing but your own prose on the subject.
I would point out that "scientific consensus" is not the same as "Scientific Fact."

You speak as though your words were in fact,,,; factual.
I think many here would be interested in knowing on what authority you speak.
ITS CALLED THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD STEW




People who don't understand this distinction sometimes dismiss ideas saying "it's just a theory" (this is very commonly used to suggest that evolution is just speculation, for example). But, when scientists speak of the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution, they don't mean that these are random untested ideas that someone came up with after too many beers.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
So, still no credentials...

People here understand the scientific method. It is a process. Nowhere in that process is a conclusion validated as fact by consensus. As a Newbie, with no credibility established, you might want to stop with the insults to our intelligences, and present your credentials. Or some facts to back up your admonitions.

Darwin's "Theory" of evolution was made from observations of the visible world. Modern science has been able to dig deeper. Hence the questions of it being fact. Many believe it to be so but science is not a democracy. It requires more than a majority to make that assertion.

Darwinism is still a theory. Like the Big Bang theory, believed by many but, subject to constant review.

If you have read my posts, and that of many others here over time, you would know we are mostly of open mind. But, speaking for myself, tire of pomposity and BS.

Speak you mind, that is welcome here. But back you arguments with some real facts. Otherwise you ae just a big gong banging the same boring tune in the wind. And rather useless to the intercourse for which these forums are intended.
 
Last edited:

MICKYJ

Member
yes
So, still no credentials...

People here understand the scientific method. It is a process. Nowhere in that process is a conclusion validated as fact by consensus. As a Newbie, with no credibility established, you might want to stop with the insults to our intelligences, and present your credentials. Or some facts to back up your admonitions.

Darwin's "Theory" of evolution was made from observations of the visible world. Modern science has been able to dig deeper. Hence the questions of it being fact. Many believe it to be so but science is not a democracy. It requires more than a majority to make that assertion.

Darwinism is still a theory. Like the Big Bang theory, believed by many but, subject to constant review.

If you have read my posts, and that of many others here over time, you would know we are mostly of open mind. But, speaking for myself, tire of pomposity and BS.

Speak you mind, that is welcome here. But back you arguments with some real facts. Otherwise you ae just a big gong banging the same boring tune in the wind. And rather useless to the intercourse for which these forums are intended.
the
 

MICKYJ

Member
So, still no credentials...

People here understand the scientific method. It is a process. Nowhere in that process is a conclusion validated as fact by consensus. As a Newbie, with no credibility established, you might want to stop with the insults to our intelligences, and present your credentials. Or some facts to back up your admonitions.

Darwin's "Theory" of evolution was made from observations of the visible world. Modern science has been able to dig deeper. Hence the questions of it being fact. Many believe it to be so but science is not a democracy. It requires more than a majority to make that assertion.

Darwinism is still a theory. Like the Big Bang theory, believed by many but, subject to constant review.

If you have read my posts, and that of many others here over time, you would know we are mostly of open mind. But, speaking for myself, tire of pomposity and BS.

Speak you mind, that is welcome here. But back you arguments with some real facts. Otherwise you ae just a big gong banging the same boring tune in the wind. And rather useless to the intercourse for which these forums are intended.
WHAT IS DARWINISM.......only christian liars for jesus use this term
 

MICKYJ

Member
So, still no credentials...

People here understand the scientific method. It is a process. Nowhere in that process is a conclusion validated as fact by consensus. As a Newbie, with no credibility established, you might want to stop with the insults to our intelligences, and present your credentials. Or some facts to back up your admonitions.

Darwin's "Theory" of evolution was made from observations of the visible world. Modern science has been able to dig deeper. Hence the questions of it being fact. Many believe it to be so but science is not a democracy. It requires more than a majority to make that assertion.

Darwinism is still a theory. Like the Big Bang theory, believed by many but, subject to constant review.

If you have read my posts, and that of many others here over time, you would know we are mostly of open mind. But, speaking for myself, tire of pomposity and BS.

Speak you mind, that is welcome here. But back you arguments with some real facts. Otherwise you ae just a big gong banging the same boring tune in the wind. And rather useless to the intercourse for which these forums are intended.
yes..the gospels are anonymous and don't appear in history until 160ad
PAPIAS IN 130 HAD NO WRITTEN GOSPEL.....
I THINK THE OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY has enough credentials haffy...
ITS CALLED THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD STEW




People who don't understand this distinction sometimes dismiss ideas saying "it's just a theory" (this is very commonly used to suggest that evolution is just speculation, for example). But, when scientists speak of the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution, they don't mean that these are random untested ideas that someone came up with after too many beers.
 
Top