Bible-Creation-Evolution

[TheReasoner]

In your opinion, did Jesus ever lie?

If he did, and I do not think He did, does that mean it's okay for you?
No, it does not. That is a tu-coque fallacy AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

If he did, and I do not think He did, does that mean it's okay for you?

Are both of these statements an automatic lie, if uttered by two different people you don't know?

1. The sky is normally green.
2. I think the sky is normally green.

 

[Nathan Poe]

In your opinion, did Jesus ever lie?

To the best of my knowledge, not intentionally, but he's been wrong before.

But since I give him more credit than those who exploit his name, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was simply mistaken about a few things.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Are both of these statements an automatic lie, if uttered by two different people you don't know?

1. The sky is normally green.
2. I think the sky is normally green.

Run along, AV -- the big people's table is no place for your semantic games.

 

[AV1611VET]

Run along, AV -- the big people's table is no place for your semantic games.

I'll do that, Nathan -- gladly.

And I'll keep that in mind the next time I hear us being accused of lying; especially when we make it plain we're giving our opinion.

In fact, automatically calling us 'liars' is one of the reasons I call you guys 'Internet scientists'.

While you claim the scientific method is the way things should be filtered, you guys do everything but employ it yourselves.

In almost every single thing I've ever been accused of here, I've been able to hold a mirror up at one time or another.

 

[Hespera]

Run along, AV -- the big people's table is no place for your semantic games.

Mixed messages, Poe-Poe

Why do you keep inviting him if you are gonna say to run along?

You know what he has to bring to the table. its the same moldy scraps as it was a year or so ago last time I was around here.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you keep inviting him if you are gonna say to run along?

They need to complain that I'm artificially-inflating my post count; and their zeal to do so makes them overlook the fact that they are a big contributor to it.

Like I've said before: remove all my numbering posts, my QVs, my repetition, my explaining basic doctrine, and my begging for answers, and what would my post count be then?

Probably @ 1000 or less.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'll do that, Nathan -- gladly.

No, you won't -- you'll stay for the attention.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

They need to complain that I'm artificially-inflating my post count; and their zeal to do so makes them overlook the fact that they are a big contributor to it.

Like I've said before: remove all my numbering posts, my QVs, my repetition, my explaining basic doctrine, and my begging for answers, and what would my post count be then?

Probably @ 1000 or less.

Then why stick around?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why stick around?

Ask yourself that; are you planning to stick around?

If you do, let me assure you, you'll end up repeating yourself over and over and over; like everyone else does.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Ask yourself that; are you planning to stick around?

If you do, let me assure you, you'll end up repeating yourself over and over and over; like everyone else does.

Yah, so why do it?

 

[Research1]

Really? Please explain.

Because evolutionists believe we evolved from asexual organisms.

Evolutionary biology is unable to reveal why animals would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction.

Even evolutionists admit its a problem for their theory:

In his 2001 book, Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, Carl Zimmer admitted:

‘Sex is not only unnecessary, but it ought to be a recipe for evolutionary disaster...'​

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Because evolutionists believe we evolved from asexual organisms.

Evolutionary biology is unable to reveal why animals would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction.

Even evolutionists admit its a problem for their theory:

In his 2001 book, Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, Carl Zimmer admitted:

‘Sex is not only unnecessary, but it ought to be a recipe for evolutionary disaster...'
​

• “Sex is not only unnecessary, but it ought to be a recipe for evolutionary disaster. For one thing, it is an inefficient way to reproduce…And sex carries other costs as well…By all rights, any group of animals that evolves sexual reproduction should be promptly outcompeted by nonsexual ones. And yet sex reigns… Why is sex a success, despite all its disadvantages?”

 

[Blayz]

Evolutionary biology is unable to reveal why animals would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction.

Sexual reproduction allows differential spread of favourable genes through a population without cloning, and also provides a method to cleanse mutations.

However, if we pose a hypothetical based on the assumption that sexual reproduction is simply more costly and inefficient, I would like to know how IDers consider this to be an intelligent design decision.

 

[Hespera]

Because evolutionists believe we evolved from asexual organisms.

Evolutionary biology is unable to reveal why animals would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction.

Even evolutionists admit its a problem for their theory:

In his 2001 book, Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, Carl Zimmer admitted:

‘Sex is not only unnecessary, but it ought to be a recipe for evolutionary disaster...'​

awwwww........... a quote mine. cute.

 

[Nathan Poe]

• “Sex is not only unnecessary, but it ought to be a recipe for evolutionary disaster. For one thing, it is an inefficient way to reproduce…And sex carries other costs as well…By all rights, any group of animals that evolves sexual reproduction should be promptly outcompeted by nonsexual ones. And yet sex reigns… Why is sex a success, despite all its disadvantages?”

Good catch on the quote mine -- someone needs to keep the creationists honest.

 

[Research1]

^ 4 evolutionists in a row failed to answer.

And you think you are honest?

 

[Blayz]

^ 4 evolutionists in a row failed to answer.

And you think you are honest?

Sexual reproduction allows differential spread of favourable genes through a population without cloning, and also provides a method to cleanse mutations.

More honest than you.

 

[TheReasoner]

^ 4 evolutionists in a row failed to answer.

And you think you are honest?

you have been answered by several "evolusionists". Funny how you fail to respond to that. Why? Was the answer not to your liking? I suppose not, since we GAVE answers. My guess, you were hoping for "You're right. We bow before you and toss all our empirical data out the window, oh sage and infallible bible interpreter"

Anything else I suppose is "dishonest".

 

[dad]

I think we're going to have to classify dadology as a very small and insignificant (statistically and otherwise) sect of Christianity. therefore, you can't speak on behalf of all Christians.

I can vote for whether I accept your opinions ....whether you like it or not.