Madagascar and Australia, a question for creationists.

[AV1611VET]

Thanks for the offer mate, but I really don't see the point of doing that,...much appreciated anyways

Okie doke!

If you change your mind, I'll be around.

 

[Colter]

I don't need three paragraphs, Colter.

Do you mind answering my question?

I thought I did answer your question. Millers point illustrates the fallacy of the flood story. Your point is invalidated because the story of Noah isn't true.

 

[Colter]

What are the requirements for fossilization and how often do they occur?
So what is the chance of finding one?

No one said anything about kangaroo fossils. Kangaroos are indigenous to Australlia where they evolved. They aren't found anywhere else in the world.

I believe celestial beings planted the primitive forms of life that would evolve into life as we know it today. It was Gods plan. Genesis was created by the priest who wrote it, however it does contain some truth.

 

[Colter]

Dup

 

[The Stamp]

Remember His heart burst in His chest cavity?

You know this how? did you make it up?

If He was just a man, how was He able to hang there and make three more sayings over a period of time with a heart that had exploded in His chest?

If he was a God then he didn't die and why did he need a heart if he was a God? I bet you don't read what you write and you certainly don't think about what you say because for you magic conquers all.

 

[The Stamp]

You're talking about universalism.

And you are talking rot.

 

[AV1611VET]

You know this how?

Hypovolemic shock from the flogging led to pericardial & pleural effusion.

 

[The Stamp]

Hypovolemic shock from the flogging led to pericardial & pleural effusion.

I repeat, you know this how? I didn't ask what happened I asked how you know it happened.

 

[dad]

Ask your pastors this question, Why do animals and plants living on these island not exist anywhere else on earth?
Could it be because they were isolated from the rest of the world and evolved?

Simple. Evolving was very fast in the former nature, and also the continental separation was rapid most likely. So we had animals in areas that became surrounded by water with adapted animals already on them.

 

[JD16]

Simple. Evolving was very fast in the former nature, and also the continental separation was rapid most likely. So we had animals in areas that became surrounded by water with adapted animals already on them.

And what is the cause for the change of speed in evolution and tectonic plates movement?

 

[Jimmy D]

Simple. Evolving was very fast in the former nature, and also the continental separation was rapid most likely. So we had animals in areas that became surrounded by water with adapted animals already on them.

This former state was post-flood too?

 

[Colter]

And what is the cause for the change of speed in evolution and tectonic plates movement?

They made Pangea in a turbo model that year. 0-60 in a week! No positive traction! But skid proof breaking!

 

[dad]

And what is the cause for the change of speed in evolution and tectonic plates movement?

Well, a different nature and laws I would deduce.Have you another cause, or some proof the nature was always the same? If not...well, you know.

 

[dad]

This former state was post-flood too?

Yes! In the days of Peleg most likely. So there was lots of time to separate continents, evolve kinds off the ark, and etc!

 

[JD16]

Well, a different nature and laws I would deduce.Have you another cause, or some proof the nature was always the same? If not...well, you know.

No, because we have no reason to believe that there is any change in speed of such developments,....its you who propose that there is or was such a change,....so please can you demonstrate that? Or is it just baseless speculation?

 

[dad]

No, because we have no reason to believe that there is any change in speed of such developments,....its you who propose that there is or was such a change,....so please can you demonstrate that? Or is it just baseless speculation?

No reason to believe? Well, when science starts out assuming stuff, how could they have reason to assume there is anything outside the religious box they live in? The question is what proof do we have the bible is wrong about what was recorded of the far past? Have you any proof the present nature existed? If not, regardless of what you believe, we can toss it out as fact or knowledge or actual science.

 

[JD16]

No reason to believe? Well, when science starts out assuming stuff, how could they have reason to assume there is anything outside the religious box they live in? The question is what proof do we have the bible is wrong about what was recorded of the far past? Have you any proof the present nature existed? If not, regardless of what you believe, we can toss it out as fact or knowledge or actual science.

No reason to believe that as science can study the evidence and demonstrate that there was no change, since its the bible claim or proponents of it that said the bible said so, the burden of proof is on you guys to show evidence,....science follows the evidence, while its religion that is based on faith,....you say that there was a change, so please, show us how, when, and why,....or do you expect non believers to take what you say on faith?

 

[dad]

No reason to believe that as science can study the evidence and demonstrate that there was no change,

Excellent, so soon as you post the proof of that we can put the issue to rest. Let's see the goods.

since its the bible claim or proponents of it that said the bible said so, the burden of proof is on you guys to show evidence

In other words you deny the resurrection and all the proofs of the bile. Fine. In your case then we won't use that evidence since you chose to deny it. You are left with science. Prove it using science then! Ha

,....science follows the evidence,

Sometimes. Other times it colors evidece, molests evidence, fabricates evidence, proceeded with no evidence at all, etc.

while its religion that is based on faith,....you say that there was a change, so please, show us how, when, and why,....or do you expect non believers to take what you say on faith?

You say there was no change, then please prove it. What, you though we must bow to some mere anti bible belief?? Seriously?

 

[JD16]

Excellent, so soon as you post the proof of that we can put the issue to rest. Let's see the goods.

In other words you deny the resurrection and all the proofs of the bile. Fine. In your case then we won't use that evidence since you chose to deny it. You are left with science. Prove it using science then! Ha

Sometimes. Other times it colors evidece, molests evidence, fabricates evidence, proceeded with no evidence at all, etc.
You say there was no change, then please prove it. What, you though we must bow to some mere anti bible belief?? Seriously?

Prove that the speed of evolution and tectonic plate movements is constant? By simple observation,....you don't see Australia on the map changing location everyday do you? Did you observe any animal giving birth to its young that is radically different from its parents? No? So therefore what reason do you have to believe that there is any change is speed in such developments?

And how many times do we have to repeat? Its you who propose that there was a change in speed,...so its on you to demonstrate it,...as you said,...walk the walk.

No one is anti bible,...we just don't take it as science

 

[dad]

Prove that the speed of evolution and tectonic plate movements is constant?

I don't need to! Science must do that if it claims it was always the same! Unless it can, we, like science, believe what we like.

By simple observation,....you don't see Australia on map changing location everyday do you?

Once this state got locked in, why would we see that? About all I expect is some residual little movements. That is what we see!

Did you observe any animal giving birth to its young that is radically different from its parents?

Why would I observe some different nature now? That is not the issue.

No? So therefore what reason do you have to believe that there is any change is speed in such developments?

Believe what you like. The bible indicates a timeframe these things had to occur in. That is great by me. If science claims the nature and evolution process in the far past was the same, they sure better do more than say..'hey, why not?'

And how many times do we have to repeat? Its you who propose that there was a change in speed,...so its on you to demonstrate it,...as you said,...walk the walk.

No. I need to prove nothing at all! I can accept that science doesn't know. End of story. They need to close their beak and act accordingly, we tire of the baseless fable stream of fake news.

No one is anti bible,...we just don't take it as science

Show science covers the nature of the past, or it really doesn't matter what anyone takes as science!