Another poor response to ERV evidence for common ancestry by a creationist.

[dad]

I mean that if retroviruses did not reproduce in the past like they do now then life could not either. Since life was reproducing in the past then so too did retroviruses.

That seems to be flawed logic to me. It is one thing to have the retroviruses reproducing somehow, and getting transferred somehow. Just like it is one thing to have rapid plant growth, different laws, and men living many centuries etc, as the record of God indicates. It is another thing to imppose our laws, our growth rates, lifespans etc onto the unknown past, and claim no life could exist without things working just the way they now do!

That should be obvious. The issue is not if something existed and transferred and reproduced. Strawman.

The entire field of astronomy proves you wrong.

No, it proves they are clipped of wings of knowledge of anything and propagate belief based fables.

The the laws of physics have not changed.

Irrelevant. The issue is whether they existed, not changed. Some laws existed, too bad you don't know what they were. Act like it.

 

[Loudmouth]

That seems to be flawed logic to me.

Coming from you, this would indicate that my logic is dead on.

Just like it is one thing to have rapid plant growth, different laws, and men living many centuries etc, as the record of God indicates.

Please provide evidence for rapid plant growth, different laws, men living centuries, God, and that the Bible is the record of this God. Until you do so you have no evidence to stand on.

No, it proves they are clipped of wings of knowledge of anything and propagate belief based fables.

Baloney. Hydrogen lines in distant stars alone disprove everything you say. You are so wrong that it is comical. Your knowledge of physics is so poor that it is inexcusable.

Irrelevant. The issue is whether they existed, not changed. Some laws existed, too bad you don't know what they were. Act like it.

That issue was settled when we started looking at distant stars.

 

[dad]

Coming from you, this would indicate that my logic is dead on.

Dead yes. We are close on this..

Please provide evidence for rapid plant growth, different laws, men living centuries, God, and that the Bible is the record of this God. Until you do so you have no evidence to stand on.

Please provide evidence against rapid plant growth, different laws, men living centuries, God, and that the Bible is the record of this God. Until you do so you have no evidence to stand on. Until then, we have the actual record passed down from beyond the time of this state. It doesn't get much better than that!!



Baloney. Hydrogen lines in distant stars alone disprove everything you say. You are so wrong that it is comical. Your knowledge of physics is so poor that it is inexcusable.



That issue was settled when we started looking at distant stars.[/quote]

 

[Loudmouth]

Please provide evidence against rapid plant growth, different laws, men living centuries, God, and that the Bible is the record of this God.

The burden of proof is not mine. It is yours, the person who is making the claims.

Until then, we have the actual record passed down from beyond the time of this state.

Evidence that this is an accurate record, please.

 

[dad]

The burden of proof is not mine. It is yours, the person who is making the claims.

In other words you have no proof. I think we get that. Proof resides outside the box.

Evidence that this is an accurate record, please.

Evidence that this is not an accurate record, please?? The parts of the bible we see fulfilled and true put the verification stamp on the rest, the bits beyond the little range and scope of science. You want to accuse God of being wrong? You better have the goods to back er up. In this year of our Lord, 2011, history is largely a story of those that saw He was oh so right.

 

[Loudmouth]

In other words you have no proof. I think we get that. Proof resides outside the box.

It is not my job to find proof of your claims. That is your job.

Evidence that this is not an accurate record, please??

It is not my claim that the Bible is an accurate record. That would be you. Please supply the evidence for your claims.

 

[mzungu]

In other words you have no proof. I think we get that. Proof resides outside the box.

Proof is used as an indication of alcohol content in alcoholic beverages. It is used in Mathematics. And it is used in literature. Empirical Science demands EVIDENCE!

Now be a good boy and give me "PROOF" Evidence that FSM does not exist and he is not the creator!

 

[dad]

Proof is used as an indication of alcohol content in alcoholic beverages. It is used in Mathematics. And it is used in literature. Empirical Science demands EVIDENCE!

So you hate even the concept of proof. OK. I understand why! You have none.

Empirical knowledge and science was not here in Noah's day.

 

[mzungu]

So you hate even the concept of proof. OK. I understand why! You have none.

Empirical knowledge and science was not here in Noah's day.

Anyone who dismisses science and uses computers and the internet amongst other fruits of science is a hypocrite!

 

[dad]

It is not my job to find proof of your claims. That is your job.

Science claims need real support. That is your job when you spout off so called science claims. Get to it. The claims of God are proven so many ways it is insane even to raise the issue. What a contrast.

It is not my claim that the Bible is an accurate record.

Then focus on your claims. They have been dying and flapping in the breeze here in case you missed it.


The fact is that there was no same state past. There is no proof for one. No evidence for one. And all the bible record that amount to evidence that we do have violently oppose one.

 

[dad]

Anyone who dismisses science and uses computers and the internet amongst other fruits of science is a hypocrite!

Anyone that pretends that computers have a thing to do with Adam of the far past and the creation debate is a hypocrite. In fact.

 

[mzungu]

Anyone that pretends that computers have a thing to do with Adam of the far past and the creation debate is a hypocrite. In fact.

Only creationists claim such things! We who use the devil's tools (Science) are not hypocrites when we use PCs and the internet!

 

[dad]

Only creationists claim such things! We who use the devil's tools (Science) are not hypocrites when we use PCs and the internet!

Stop trying to give credit for everything to your little uknowwhat.

 

[mzungu]

Stop trying to give credit for everything to your little uknowwhat.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Science belongs to the devil and anyone using the fruits of science while dismissing science is acting in hypocrisy. This is in accordance to the official definition of the word hypocrisy!

SCIENCE belongs to the DEVIL and to prove it I shall quote you:

Jesus was a victim of that. It is the cousin of the death caused by science...man's wisdom in different dress.

 

[dad]

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Science belongs to the devil and anyone using the fruits of science while dismissing science is acting in hypocrisy.

Knowledge is not from below exclusively. Sorry you were misinformed. Oh, and I can assure you that I have nothing that Caesar owns. Try to keep up.

SCIENECE belongs to the DEVIL and to prove it I shall quote you:

Yes. Now remember, do not offer some quote about so called science.

 

[mzungu]

Knowledge is not from below exclusively. Sorry you were misinformed. Oh, and I can assure you that I have nothing that Caesar owns. Try to keep up.

Man ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge and thus knowledge is sin and belongs to the sinful devil! In conclusion; Knowledge which includes science belongs to the devil! Try to keep up!

 

[Greg1234]

Anyone who dismisses science and uses computers and the internet amongst other fruits of science is a hypocrite!

And a faction who tells people they're universal when they're actually methodological naturalism?

 

[Greg1234]

Only creationists claim such things! We who use the devil's tools (Science) are not hypocrites when we use PCs and the internet!

Didn't the building of the catapult without regard for atoms rule out atoms?

 

[mzungu]

Didn't the building of the catapult without regard for atoms rule out atoms?

Didn't the Bible when it was being written without regard for atoms rule out atoms

 

[mzungu]

And a faction who tells people they're universal when they're actually methodological naturalism?

Irrelevant!