10 Scientific Facts Evolution is Wrong

[TLK Valentine]

Yes -- God was on our side.

Gott Mit Uns, eh AV?

Ever heard of Gideon?

Ever heard of Achilles?

 

[AV1611VET]

Gott Mit Uns, eh AV?

IN GOD WE TRUST

 

[Mainframes]

To be fair, I think most of Europe would now be part of the USSR. Russia did most of the heavy work with regards to breaking the back of the German army.

 

[RickG]

I'd like to see your peer reviewed citations that back your claim that "Creationists do more harm to Christianity than anyone else".

That would be interesting to research. I gather it may be in the Sociology literature if any exists. Nevertheless, I have to agree that Creationism, the misrepresented science side, is very detrimental to Christianity. A belief in a literal Genesis is one thing, to present science in an intellectually dishonest manner to support ones belief goes against the teachings of Christianity.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

With only the Russian front to worry about perhaps the outcome for the Germans would have been different, with Britain and the Commonwealth out of it Germany could have concentrated on defeating the Russians.

The Russian winter defeated the nazis as much as anything else. It was the same problem that destroyed Napoleon's Grande Armee 140 years earlier: Napoleon marched into Russia with well over half a million men and crawled out 6 months later with only 27,000 fit men left having lost 380,000 dead and 100,000 captured (wikipedia).

 

[Strathos]

Oh, my.

Please link to where I have used more than one definition of embedded age creation.

I have a simple three-word definition that I've used over the years.

And it is very vague and meaningless by itself - your attempts to explain it have not made any sense.

Not that I know of.

If Genesis 1 can't do it, I can't.

It takes the Holy Spirit to do something like that.

It's all about faith, not about evidence.

Would you do me a favor now and back your [false] accusation up with a link?

The Holy Spirit can convince you of God. It doesn't convince you of creationism. Believing in God =/= believing in creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

And it is very vague and meaningless by itself

What is?

Can you even quote it w/o looking it up?

It's only three words long, and I've only been using it for about six or seven years.

 

[Kylie]

What is?

Can you even quote it w/o looking it up?

It's only three words long, and I've only been using it for about six or seven years.

Something can be short and memorable without making any sense.

 

[Kylie]

Am I a bad boy for having started this OP?

You are a bad boy because:

1. You do not look at the actual evidence
2. You accept claims based on whether you want to believe them or not
3. You hold double standards
4. You misrepresent science
5. You avoid answering questions when answering them will show that you are wrong
6. Because you act like a child sometimes in what is supposed to be a discussion among adults.

(Needless to say, the link you provided doesn't explain squat.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Something can be short and memorable without making any sense.

Fine with me.

What is it that doesn't make sense?

Can you answer that in three words? no more/no less?

 

[AV1611VET]

You are a bad boy because:

1. You do not look at the actual evidence
2. You accept claims based on whether you want to believe them or not
3. You hold double standards
4. You misrepresent science
5. You avoid answering questions when answering them will show that you are wrong
6. Because you act like a child sometimes in what is supposed to be a discussion among adults.

(Needless to say, the link you provided doesn't explain squat.)

When it comes to creationism:

1. You* don't either. There is none to look at -- irrespective of what you think.
2. And you don't?
3. And you hold errant standards as well.
4. And you misrepresent theology, sometimes in the worse way.
5. And you don't?
6. There's nothing wrong with being child-like, as long as you're not child-ish.

(I never do explain squat to you.)

* By "you" in this post, I mean "you guys." If this was Jacobean English, like the KJB is, I could have used another word ("ye") and wouldn't have had to clarify this. But since language has gone rapidly downhill since then, clarification is needed.

 

[Kylie]

When it comes to creationism:

1. You* don't either. There is none to look at -- irrespective of what you think.
2. And you don't?
3. And you hold errant standards as well.
4. And you misrepresent theology, sometimes in the worse way.
5. And you don't?
6. There's nothing wrong with being child-like, as long as you're not child-ish.

(I never do explain squat to you.)

* By "you" in this post, I mean "you guys." If this was Jacobean English, like the KJB is, I could have used another word ("ye") and wouldn't have had to clarify this. But since language has gone rapidly downhill since then, clarification is needed.

1: Glad you admit that there's no evidence. But why do you believe? Do you make a habit of believing claims for which there is no support? Oh, and it's one thing to not look at evidence if there is none. But there is literally a ton of evidence supporting evolution and an ancient universe, so what's your excuse for ignoring it? (I know, you don't want to think about it, because then you'll realise that you are wrong.)

2. No, I do not pick and chose what to believe based on whether I like it or not. I believe I will never have another child, even though I find that very upsetting.

3. Name one double standard I hold. If your example is valid, I will change it.

4. Care to give me an example where I have misrepresented theology (and me saying something about religion you happen to disagree with doesn't count).

5. Care to show me an example of this?

6. And you've done both, haven't you?

 

[Kylie]

Fine with me.

What is it that doesn't make sense?

Can you answer that in three words? no more/no less?

If I answered it in three words, I would not make any sense. Surely you have experience with three word soundbites that mean nothing?

 

[Queller]

Oh, my.

Please link to where I have used more than one definition of embedded age creation.

I have a simple three-word definition that I've used over the years.

Embedded age creation by definition needs a young earth. If it didn't there would be no need to have "embedded" anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

Embedded age creation by definition needs a young earth.

Nope -- a mature one.

I define embedded age creation as: maturity without history.

Very, very few people here can remember that.

Probably because they're too busy ridiculing it, rather than trying to understand it.

If I laugh & ridicule the FOIL method for multiplying two binomials, chances are I'll end up not remembering what FOIL stands for.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope -- a mature one.

I define embedded age creation as: maturity without history.

Very, very few people here can remember that.

Probably because they're too busy ridiculing it, rather than trying to understand it.

If I laugh & ridicule the FOIL method for multiplying two binomials, chances are I'll end up not remembering what FOIL stands for.

They can understand it, and remember it, and it is an idea that only deserves ridicule.

By the way, you just described a young Earth created by a dishonest God. Are you sure that you want to do that?

 

[46AND2]

Very, very few people here can remember that.

No, we don't forget, AV. It's just that for any reasonable definition of "history" (really ANY definition, reasonable or not, since you have failed to come up with an example of what would constitute "history" to you) the earth clearly exhibits it....

 

[AV1611VET]

They can understand it, and remember it,

No, we don't forget, AV.

Uh-huh.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Uh-huh.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

If you insist Genghis.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you insist Genghis.

QV 11,ff