What proof would you need? (2)

[selfinflikted]

Sounds to me like you're all for getting psychological help for us, eh?

Have you ever wondered how we used to be scored if we saw Christian symbols on the Rorschach test?

No. I'm just poking fun, no, actually mocking, Astrid. Her posts leave a sour taste in my mouth after reading them. She's got to be one of the haughtiest Christians I've met here. And that says a lot.

 

[CabVet]

What's wrong with that?

What is wrong with that? Simply that she is misinterpreting scientific data using a flawed logic. Example? Here:

There are literally hundreds of biological characters that are unique to insects. There are also hundreds that are unique to mammals. There are also some that are shared by both groups. What she did with the Turkana boy (and every other one of her posts) was equivalent to taking one of the few shared characters and using to prove her wrong theory.

So, using the insect and mammal example, what she did was the same as saying "both insects and mammals have brains and a nervous system, therefore insects are mammals". After that, she declares herself the "winner". Using her logic, I can make any group belong to any other group. Rats are primates, fish are whales, horses are not mammals, Turkana Boy is an ape, Lucy is an ape, Neanderthals are apes, Humans are closer to pigs than they are to apes, you name it.

As I mentioned here many times, I have nothing against someone saying "God did it". That a personal belief, and I respect that. I even told you that your embedded age hypothesis to me is preferable to trying to spread false science as she does.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is wrong with that? Simply that she is misinterpreting scientific data using a flawed logic. Example? Here:

There are literally hundreds of biological characters that are unique to insects. There are also hundreds that are unique to mammals. There are also some that are shared by both groups. What she did with the Turkana boy (and every other one of her posts) was equivalent to taking one of the few shared characters and using to prove her wrong theory.

So, using the insect and mammal example, what she did was the same as saying "both insects and mammals have brains and a nervous system, therefore insects are mammals". After that, she declares herself the "winner". Using her logic, I can make any group belong to any other group. Rats are primates, fish are whales, horses are not mammals, Turkana Boy is an ape, Lucy is an ape, Neanderthals are apes, Humans are closer to pigs than they are to apes, you name it.

As I mentioned here many times, I have nothing against someone saying "God did it". That a personal belief, and I respect that. I even told you that your embedded age hypothesis to me is preferable to trying to spread false science as she does.

Just asking --

 

[CabVet]

Just asking --

Yeah, right Now, what she does especially bothers me because none of her flawed "doubts" challenges evolution as a whole, they only challenge small details of it. And even if they challenged evolution, disproving evolution does not automatically prove creationism. As someone said here before:

[FONT=&quot]

Denial is not evidence.

[/FONT]

 

[Astridhere]

AV1611VET I think we can clearly see ego stoking targeted ridicule at creationists only demonstrates boofheads that cannot support their psuedo science, and my assertion backed by evidence and interpretation is much more robust and credible. I think evolutionists believe in more miracles than creationists.

Cabvet, TOE is full of small theories that support an over arching theory and all of them are no better than your whale rubbish. You are the one peddling crap science in support of desperation and have nothing to offer in your defence instead of global evo agreements that have been falsisfied many times over the past 150 years. Get over yourself and get peddling with something to actually demonstrate your so solid crap that you keep talking and woffling about. Here is one little point and your head for the hills in woffle.

Note all creationists....only ridicule and trying to head down the garden path of asides and other topics in a desperate attempt to hide their obvious ignorance as opposed to my reply with EVIDENCE in my support instead of the hot air offered by evos.

Whales have been here for well over 290 million years. Evolution is falsified. Creation is substantiated.

Credible and plausible evidence from evolutionists..Now there's an idea that we rarely see demonstrated in evolutionists!!!!

 

[selfinflikted]

Yeah, right Now, what she does especially bothers me because none of her flawed "doubts" challenges evolution as a whole, they only challenge small details of it. And even if they challenged evolution, disproving evolution does not automatically prove creationism.

Quite right, Darls.

(Ya'll let me know when that gets on your nerves. I have a feeling it won't get boring for me for a while)

 

[begt]

You do not have human transistionals that demonstrate common ancestor to mankind. You do have some evidence of transition from one variety of ape to another and adaptation and that is all.

Hence creation is supported. Evolution predicts intermediates will be found between kinds. Creation predicts there will be no intermediates between kinds.

Astonishing Everything you say here is just wrong. "Hence creation is supported" Even if there was a "gap" or lack of evidence for evolution in this case, that by no means justifies belief in creation.

Archeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Ambulocetus are some intermediate forms (like we all are )

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Go to a library, read what's on wikipedia. The evolutionary history of humans is very well researched.

Can you please tell me who the scientists where that worked on the Carbon dating you referred to? What methods of radiometric dating were used? Usually more than one method is being used and sometimes molecular clocks are used as well.

Homology and convergent evolution are perfectly logical concepts that fit very well with DNA, regardless of what youre saying.

Is there any evidence, other than the assumption of TOE that this land was undersea so recently given the fauna and flora it was found with? Indeed I see no reason to not take the whale fossils for what simply is apparent, evidence that whales were alive and thriving close to the time of the creation of all life in the sea, as stated in the bible. This evidence more aligns with creation, than evolution.

Geological processes are very slow, everything points to that. Just take the many layers of salt in salt mines, the slow drift of continents, or erosion. A young earth makes no sense at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV1611VET I think we can clearly see ego stoking targeted ridicule at creationists only demonstrates boofheads that cannot support their psuedo science, and my assertion backed by evidence and interpretation is much more robust and credible. I think evolutionists believe in more miracles than creationists.

-- I think I'll stay out of this one, sis, and let you handle it; since science is way over my head.

I have my own set of issues with what these guys believe.

 

[Keachian]

Well, when the Antichrist gets here ... that will change.

He will take evolution to the very heights of religious fervor, starting with a display of abiogenesis.

Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

Those who refuse evolution will be beheaded.

In my opinion.

Heehee
I personally think that Satan uses far different means of separation in Christianity, KJVonlyism to the point where you call people who do not use it not saved for one, the sacred name movement would be another and in some ways I think Creationism that tries to use science to defend itself is another

 

[CabVet]

Cabvet, TOE is full of small theories that support an over arching theory and all of them are no better than your whale rubbish. You are the one peddling crap science in support of desperation and have nothing to offer in your defence instead of global evo agreements that have been falsisfied many times over the past 150 years. Get over yourself and get peddling with something to actually demonstrate your so solid crap that you keep talking and woffling about. Here is one little point and your head for the hills in woffle.

No, proving that humans are closer to orangutans instead of chimps does not falsify evolution. Proving that Turkana Boy was not a human ancestor does not falsify evolution. Proving that Lucy was not part of the human lineage does not falsify evolution.

And finally, falsifying evolution does not offer one ounce of support for creationism.

 

[Astridhere]

begt....I know evos have difficulty staying on track and deploy to global common knowledge that is falsified by one fossil and dates recalibrated to suit, many changing flavours of the month, ridicule and asides but none of you can defend any of it. I have demonstrated it many times on here and many creationists have seen it.

You need to aim your ridicule at someone that cares because I know you cannot articulate a response of any substance and I feel I have already beaten you on any platform of debate. Putting up your stupid links is NOT supporting your view and is no more than saying 'they said so'. That is no better than "God did it" as a response.

If whales have been here for 290 million years then all the fossils you present as whale ancestors are nothing more than other creatures, regardless of what sort they are and the naming of who is who in the Linnaean zoo.

That's my interpretation of the whale fossil evidence presented and it is up to you evolutionists to dispute it. I have presented evidence of whale fossils found in dirt previously dated to 290myo and suggest your inconsistent carbon dates are not evidence of anything and is counter intuitive and too recent to be valid. Hence modern whales were here 290mya and creation is supported and virtually established as fact.

If you can't refute me with some more plausible evidence, I win again. GO!

If I come back to more ridicule and nonsense asides and global flavours of misrepresentation as evidence then I shall declare myself the winner. You lot need to defend these 'little theories of yours', that support the whole, and you cannot.

I only care what biblical creationists think. I do not need to go around in circles with you lot for days. I've had sufficient feedback and reputations to know some here like what I have to say. I don't care what you, or any other evolutionist, thinks.

 

[DarylFawcett]

MOD HAT ON!!!

Thread cleanup was done to remove direct responses to a user's deleted posts.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[begt]

Astridhere: what study and what scientists are you talking about? I'm awaiting an answer..

That is no better than "God did it" as a response.

No, because what's there is actually based on evidence and research. The bible is not. It could've been written by anyone, no one really knows.

I have yet to see one (1) instance where different dating methods provide significantly different results.

 

[begt]

I know evos have difficulty staying on track and deploy to global common knowledge that is falsified by one fossil and dates recalibrated to suit, many changing flavours of the month, ridicule and asides but none of you can defend any of it. I have demonstrated it many times on here and many creationists have seen it.

What is this evidence? Do you seriously think you have some serious evidence that could topple the theory of evolution. You'd be famous...

 

[selfinflikted]

What is this evidence? Do you seriously think you have some serious evidence that could topple the theory of evolution. You'd be famous...

Of course not. But, she reckons, her "evidence" is as good as anything the proponents of evolution can come up with. You know, since they have no idea what they're talking about, what with 150 years of debunked "science." ... Darls.

 

[Keachian]

Of course not. But, she reckons, her "evidence" is as good as anything the proponents of evolution can come up with. You know, since they have no idea what they're talking about, what with 150 years of debunked "science." ... Darls.

Darls, I think you totally miss her point about 3ft waddlers and whackey pelvis' it's quite clear to any woffler that evidence is purely in one's own mind

 

[AV1611VET]

Heehee
I personally think that Satan uses far different means of separation in Christianity, KJVonlyism to the point where you call people who do not use it not saved for one,

I hope that wasn't a reference to me.

I personally don't know anyone who says that.

 

[Keachian]

I hope that wasn't a reference to me.

I personally don't know anyone who says that.

No, for the most part I don't think you are divisive in what you believe. There are people who have made sweeping generalizations of salvation based on people not reading the KJV, I think that this is far more divisive and far more in detriment to Christianity than some of the things you get up to.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, for the most part I don't think you are divisive in what you believe. There are people who have made sweeping generalizations of salvation based on people not reading the KJV, I think that this is far more divisive and far more in detriment to Christianity than some of the things you get up to.

Well, in the 5½ years I've been here, I've yet to see it, myself.

However, I post almost exclusively in C&E and P&LS, so I can't say that I really get around here much.

 

[Zaius137]

What is this evidence? Do you seriously think you have some serious evidence that could topple the theory of evolution. You'd be famous...

(begt),

You win and here is the proof for evolution you can use in the future. Since you have not looked into the genetics enough to understand the evidence against evolution for yourself I have condensed a perfect argument for you. I have used this many times myself to argue in favor of evolution. You have my permission to use and reproduce it at your pleasure….



Muntz engineering validates evolution biology.

“Muntzing is the practice and technique of reducing the components inside an electronic appliance to the minimum required for it to function. The term is named after the man who invented it, Earl "Madman" Muntz, a car and electronics salesman who was also a self-taught electrical engineer.”
Madman Muntz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution researchers by damaging DNA and RNA sequences and evaluating the fitness of the resulting organism are in essence “Muntzing”. Because a direct parallel can be drawn between the shortcomings of Muntzing and evolutionary research we can extrapolate an outcome to evolutionary thought. Mad man Muntz never clipped a component from a radio and came up with a TV. This same shortcoming is obvious in evolution research. Parallels are…

• Muntzing never adds new information
• Muntzing never originates a new device
• Muntzing never preserves none functional components

The compliments to evolution are…

• Evolution never adds new information
• Evolution never is the origin of life
• Evolution can not preserve temporal non-coding DNA

Muntzing and evolution are analogous…
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4c/Earlmuntz.jpg