Evolution Denies - Please Refute this

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

You have no "authority" from God or anyone else! You may see yourself as God's One True Prophet here, but the rest of us know that this is a fantasy and that you are deluded.

The lurkers either just shake their head at your delusions of grandeur, or simply laugh at you. Show me one lurker that you have won over for God.... just one, dad.

Thankfully, the readers on this forum realize that dad does NOT speak for anybody but himself. I appreciate that none of you assume that dad represents the teachings of Jesus *or* of the Bible in general. (Bible critics could take the easy shot and blame the Bible and all of us Christ-followers for the things that dad says but I thank you for being honest and reasonable. The Bible should be read on its own terms and NOT as "interpreted" by dad's fantasies and obfuscations.)

How sad that so many TRADITIONS about the Bible have confused what the Bible actually states. Fortunately, dad's imaginations are so extreme that even the least Bible-literate realize that his ideas have no relation to the Biblical text.

 

[dad]

Thankfully, the readers on this forum realize that dad does NOT speak for anybody but himself. I appreciate that none of you assume that dad represents the teachings of Jesus *or* of the Bible in general.

yeah right...the real truth of the bible is that Adam evolved over millions of years!!!!!?

(Bible critics could take the easy shot and blame the Bible and all of us Christ-followers for the things that dad says but I thank you for being honest and reasonable. The Bible should be read on its own terms and NOT as "interpreted" by dad's fantasies and obfuscations.)

Heaven forbid anyone actually believe it!??

 

[dad]

Why do I need to define fusion in my own words?

To show you grasp it. Also to put something on the table.

I posted a video and asked people to refute the content within. My individual definition of fusion has no bearing on the information contained within the OP.

Since it uses that concept it is central.

"A fairly thorough and complete 614 kb (614,000 bases) annotated genomic landscape was constructed that encompasses the fusion site and was published by a lab in several related reports shortly after the initial first working draft of the human genome project."

So what!!!!?? What causes the fusion at the site?

 

[Subduction Zone]

dad, is it necessary to know the cause of an event to know that the event happened?

For example if you came over the top of a hill and saw two cars with their front ends caved in, smoke and perhaps fire coming out of both cars and no other objects anywhere around would it be reasonable to conclude that the two cars collided?

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

dad, is it necessary to know the cause of an event to know that the event happened?

For example if you came over the top of a hill and saw two cars with their front ends caved in, smoke and perhaps fire coming out of both cars and no other objects anywhere around would it be reasonable to conclude that the two cars collided?

It would be REASONABLE but it wouldn't be something "dad" would allow for.

Dad's traditions would say that the scene was created that way instantaneously via no intermediate processes. And Ken Ham would say, "Were you there?" (That is, Ken Ham would claim ignorance---and everyone would agree with his self-assessment.)

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

DAD wrote:

"When I point out the doctrines of devils and age old diabolical doubts of Satan incarnated into the modern form of so called science, I do so with accuracy and authority from the Almighty"

​

Yes, dad, you keep on fightin' those devils runnin' about in all those evil machinations of science 'n stuff.

It must be invigoratin' to have all of that "accuracy and authority" from the Almighty. But at that point I get concerned because I do NOT think your rants should be blamed on God. Nobody can be blamed on them but you.

 

[AV1611VET]

It must be invigoratin' to have all of that "accuracy and authority" from the Almighty. But at that point I get concerned because I do NOT think your rants should be blamed on God. Nobody can be blamed on them but you.

And what did Jesus say about the scientists who could sci, but not discern?

Luke 12:56 Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?

How many scientists here can talk their heads off about everything from abiogenesis to zoology, but when it comes to discussing the times of Jesus, can't even agree that Scofield got the events of the resurrection morning correct, when Scofield lays it right out in front of them for their perusal?

They should be telling us the events of the resurrection; and doing it with pinpoint scientific accuracy, instead of asking us what they are, then denying it when we respond with Scofield's notes.

And these are the [kinds of] people we rely on when we board a space shuttle or take medication.

 

[Belk]

And what did Jesus say about the scientists who could sci, but not discern?

Luke 12:56 Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?

How many scientists here can talk their heads off about everything from abiogenesis to zoology, but when it comes to discussing the times of Jesus, can't even agree that Scofield got the events of the resurrection morning correct, when Scofield lays it right out in front of them for their perusal?

They should be telling us the events of the resurrection; and doing it with pinpoint scientific accuracy, instead of asking us what they are, then denying it when we respond with Scofield's notes.

And these are the [kinds of] people we rely on when we board a space shuttle or take medication.

Because you complain when the evidence leads them away from your interpretation? You can either deal with reality or tell it to take a hike. Afraid you can not make it conform to your expectations anymore then the rest of us can. Personally I would like reality to contain me having lots of money and jet setting around the world.

 

[dad]

dad, is it necessary to know the cause of an event to know that the event happened?

To make an event mean what you claim it means how it happen paramount. We need to see how fusion actually takes place in this state. Then we need you to prove there was this present state in place in the far past, and that it also made the fusion happen the same ways. A bit like ERVs, the issue is not that they exist, but how they transferred back in the far past.

 

[dad]

It would be REASONABLE but it wouldn't be something "dad" would allow for.

Dad's traditions would say that the scene was created that way instantaneously via no intermediate processes.

Try to get a grip on what people actually say before displaying ignorance.

 

[dad]

DAD wrote:

"When I point out the doctrines of devils and age old diabolical doubts of Satan incarnated into the modern form of so called science, I do so with accuracy and authority from the Almighty"

​

Yes, dad, you keep on fightin' those devils runnin' about in all those evil machinations of science 'n stuff.

It must be invigoratin' to have all of that "accuracy and authority" from the Almighty. But at that point I get concerned because I do NOT think your rants should be blamed on God. Nobody can be blamed on them but you.

What you or I think must check out with what He said.

 

[TLK Valentine]

What you or I think must check out with what He said.

What we think does. What you think is irrelevant.

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

Try to get a grip on what people actually say before displaying ignorance.

Why do you say that? You've NEVER let anything delay YOUR "displaying ignorance."

Do you tell your kids "Do as I say, not as I do."?

 

[loktai]

To show you grasp it. Also to put something on the table.


Since it uses that concept it is central.
So what!!!!?? What causes the fusion at the site?

Does my meaning of God alter what you perceive to be god? I doubt it does.
So why does my understanding of fusion have any impact on what is being said in the video?

I have put something on the table - the video - by someone who knows an awful lot more about the subject he is talking on than I do.

If you need a definition of fusion, ask him, not me.

As per usual you have nothing of substance to refure the video, so you are going off on a tangent about states and other nonsense.

The challenge stands: Please refute what is in the video, not my definition, not my individual understanding, not the laws of physics. Just the content of the video, if you please.

If you can't, then say so. There is nothing wrong with a bit of humility.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

It would be REASONABLE but it wouldn't be something "dad" would allow for.

Dad's traditions would say that the scene was created that way instantaneously via no intermediate processes. And Ken Ham would say, "Were you there?" (That is, Ken Ham would claim ignorance---and everyone would agree with his self-assessment.)

Actually, if you came to three Roman Crucifixes with three dead men, your theory would not hold up. You, like science would automatically assume all three men were punished for their wrongs. When in reality only two were punished for their wrongs and one was punished for YOUR wrongs.

Science would assume all three were mere men. But, not known to science; one was God in the flesh.

Science would require the evidence of a grave, with a body; without the body of Christ; they could only claim there was no death.

Science claims to not need all the answers, but I say science requires more answers every time new knowledge of creation arises.

 

[loktai]

Actually you are incorrect. Science would deduce that three men had died. They would then examine the bodies to determine the cause of death, was it blood loss, dehydradion, starvation?

They would then propose several scenarios as to why those men were there, and then look for evidence to support those scenarios. They may say three men were there after being convicted of a crime. If they commited the crime or not is another matter, they may have been found guilty incorrectly.

They would likely check for criminal record logs for that area, and then question the people that committed them to find out from the source exactly what happend.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

Actually you are incorrect. Science would deduce that three men had died. They would then examine the bodies to determine the cause of death, was it blood loss, dehydradion, starvation?

They would then propose several scenarios as to why those men were there, and then look for evidence to support those scenarios. They may say three men were there after being convicted of a crime. If they commited the crime or not is another matter, they may have been found guilty incorrectly.

They would likely check for criminal record logs for that area, and then question the people that committed them to find out from the source exactly what happend.

Thanks, you now understand why the Bible is of use. Although science would try to disprove it; the bible has never failed to be nothing but truth.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Actually, if you came to three Roman Crucifixes with three dead men, your theory would not hold up. You, like science would automatically assume all three men were punished for their wrongs. When in reality only two were punished for their wrongs and one was punished for YOUR wrongs.

Science would assume all three were mere men. But, not known to science; one was God in the flesh.

Science would require the evidence of a grave, with a body; without the body of Christ; they could only claim there was no death.

Science claims to not need all the answers, but I say science requires more answers every time new knowledge of creation arises.

Don't be ridiculous.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Thanks, you now understand why the Bible is of use. Although science would try to disprove it; the bible has never failed to be nothing but truth.

You mean like, not one piece of evidence to support the Exodus story?

 

[dad]

Why do you say that? You've NEVER let anything delay YOUR "displaying ignorance."

I say that because you are not seemingly aware of my actual position or what I say, when you try to present a position you claim I have. Not even in the ball park.

For example..

"Dad's traditions would say that the scene was created that way instantaneously via no intermediate processes..."