5 Questions Evolutionists Can't Answer

[Loudmouth]

That's awesome. I was under the impression that viruses need hosts to survive. If that's not the case, feel free to correct me. If that is the case, then your little "definition" falls flat on it's face because already fully developed hosts need to be present before any viruses can do anything.

Those hosts were present, so where is the problem?

It did point out the major hurdles that evolutionists don't want to touch with a ten foot pole.

You mean the topics that scientists are doing research on right now? Those same topics that no creationist is doing research on?

 

[toolmanjantzi]

Please use the "quote" feature properly, to make it easy to see what you are responding to. Nobody gives enough of one to try and find it without a link, especially as you have a proven track record of posting drivel.

Once again the conversation that was started from the beginning is the conversation to which I have not quoted. The conversation to which Loudmouth is responding to that you have not responded in kind. This Forum is not atheist against Christian so if you wish for proper quoting by all means approach the poster also to whom I quoted and responded to.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

He seems petrified to me.

Tool, I think you have to accept something that is important. Some people don't view the bible as a credible source of history and they have good reasons to have this opinion and they have been stated on these boards countless times. You are certainly free to accept the bible as truth, that is your choice.

So, by not answering the question he fails to disprove the truth of one verse. A very simple verse that proves time and time again to be true.

There is no falsehood by agreeing with the truth of a storyline that is already established to be a fairytale.

"Pinnochio's nose grew when he lied." Is true. This truth does not need assurance of it being a fairytale, unless the hearer is fully not aware of the story.

Who was born in a stable and laid in a manger? Does not immediately get the response Santa Clause; neither does "who is dressed in red and white and puts Christmas gifts under the tree?" Get the response "Jesus".

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. (1 Corinthians 12:3 KJV)

Loudmouth wanted proof of the Holy Spirit; there it is.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

What are you on? Can I have some?

You seem to have all the answers for things man can not see with the naked eye; but require a high IQ and years of education. I give you a verse:

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. (1 Corinthians 12:3 KJV)

Seems so simple doesn't it all you have to do is say "Jesus is The Lord", and instantly you prove the bible to be in error; unless the Holy Spirit is with you; you can NOT do so without lying.

No education required. Just God.

 

[bhsmte]

So, by not answering the question he fails to disprove the truth of one verse. A very simple verse that proves time and time again to be true.

There is no falsehood by agreeing with the truth of a storyline that is already established to be a fairytale.

"Pinnochio's nose grew when he lied." Is true. This truth does not need assurance of it being a fairytale, unless the hearer is fully not aware of the story.

Who was born in a stable and laid in a manger? Does not immediately get the response Santa Clause; neither does "who is dressed in red and white and puts Christmas gifts under the tree?" Get the response "Jesus".

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. (1 Corinthians 12:3 KJV)

Loudmouth wanted proof of the Holy Spirit; there it is.

Because a verse is in the bible makes it true?

If that is what you think, that goes back to the fundamental difference I was referring to; some don't take the bible as credible, you do.

 

[rjw]

[youtube]L6zrpBINJR0[/youtube]

I simply take that very first point - the explanation for the origin of the universe. I don't know of anyone who can explain it.

So I don't know why you nor the presenter of that video makes a big deal out of it.

The furtherest we can go to explaining it is the Big Bang, which we have good evidence for. But beyond that? If I were to put the same question to you AV, at best I'd get nothing but assertion, and at worst I'd get nothing.

We can all argue by either assertion or silence.

But you cannot explain it anymore than I can. I note that the presenter of the video did not explain it either.

 

[AV1611VET]

But you cannot explain it anymore than I can. I note that the presenter of the video did not explain it either.

So, what's your point?

It's a question evolutionists can't answer -- yet evolution wouldn't be around had it not happened.

Go figure, eh?

 

[rjw]

So, what's your point?

It's a question evolutionists can't answer -- yet evolution wouldn't be around had it not happened.

Go figure, eh?

It's hard to figure out what's supposedly so embarrassing about not being able to answer that question.

I cannot explain how aircraft work. Therefore should I be embarrassed and find that my inability to explain how they work, makes my theory that aircraft actually do exist, flawed in some way?

I have plenty of evidence that aircraft to actually exist, even though I cannot explain how they happen to exist and how they work.


Therefore, that one point alone, from your video, seems pointless.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

Because a verse is in the bible makes it true?

If that is what you think, that goes back to the fundamental difference I was referring to; some don't take the bible as credible, you do.

Once again read the context of the verse. Can you say Jesus is The Lord? A child could do it, can you?

 

[bhsmte]

Once again read the context of the verse. Can you say Jesus is The Lord? A child could do it, can you?

Words on a page are not equivalent to proof. Anybody, can write anything, it doesn't make it true.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

Words on a page are not equivalent to proof. Anybody, can write anything, it doesn't make it true.

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. (1 Corinthians 12:3 KJV)

And you prove it true once again. One strong verse. If God was a fairy tale, and so was Christ, why are you unable to claim "Jesus is The Lord".

Thumbs, up to your inabilities.

 

[Shemjaza]

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. (1 Corinthians 12:3 KJV)

And you prove it true once again. One strong verse. If God was a fairy tale, and so was Christ, why are you unable to claim "Jesus is The Lord".

Thumbs, up to your inabilities.

"If I assert incredible things without evidence then people who don't already agree with me won't believe me!" isn't a profound statement, it's just stating the obvious.

 

[HitchSlap]

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. (1 Corinthians 12:3 KJV)

And you prove it true once again. One strong verse. If God was a fairy tale, and so was Christ, why are you unable to claim "Jesus is The Lord".

Thumbs, up to your inabilities.

I think maybe you need a break from CF.

Just a suggestion.

 

[USincognito]

Whereas I know it to be a lie.

No you don't. You think it's a "lie" (whatever that means the context of a scientific theory) based on lies you have been told by Creationists.

Excellent. Then you know what is. The doesn't explain origination, since the origination of matter; including the earth; is a scientific impossibility.

See, this is exactly what I mean. Tell us how the "origination of... the earth" is a scientific impossibility. I would love to hear that one because I'm not a geologist or astrophysicist and even I am familiar with stellar nucleosynthesis, stellar accretion, planetary accretion, some basic geology on the formation of the continents, etc.

 

[USincognito]

Fossils are evidence of a great flood that buried creatures alive and encased them in sentiment. They are fould all over the world, including whale fossils in the dessert. Don't blame God because you misread the evidence.

That last bit is funny.

As Mike noted there are fossils found in deposits that were not wet when laid down like volcanic ash, paleosols, aeolian sandstone, etc.. There are fossils found in deposits that happened due to rivers or runoff and not due to a flood. There are trace fossils that could not have been made during The Flood. There are deposits that have to occur in conditions that the turbidity of The Flood would have made impossible (chalks for example).

And yes, there are fossilized whales found in the desert. Ironically for you, those fossil whales are evidence for evolution.
Philip D. Gingerich

 

[USincognito]

And here are the cream of the crop first responses put forth by top internet evolutionists. No meat. Not even milk. Nothing but pure drivel. NO wonder they want to ram ToE down the throats of children who have not yet been taught to think for themselves. They have to start the indoctrination early!

Awesome. For 3 years GB's been here getting his tuckhus handed to him on evolution and when AV wastes yet more server space and is called on it, GB decides that's an opportune time to crawl out of the woodwork and post this comment full of derision and high dudgeon, but utterly bereft of facts, evidence or a salient point.

Kudos.

 

[KWCrazy]

I cannot explain how aircraft work. Therefore should I be embarrassed and find that my inability to explain how they work, makes my theory that aircraft actually do exist, flawed in some way?

They create lift using Bernoulli's principle (increase speed, decrease pressure). The air flows faster over the top of the wing and the aircraft rises. Directing the flow of air over the edges of the wings and the rudder gives the pilot the ability to maneuver.

 

[rjw]

They create lift using Bernoulli's principle (increase speed, decrease pressure). The air flows faster over the top of the wing and the aircraft rises. Directing the flow of air over the edges of the wings and the rudder gives the pilot the ability to maneuver.

I think you missed the point of my analogy to AV.

I was attempting to demonstrate why AVs reply to me regarding his video was not well made. Here is our exchange:-

But you cannot explain it (the origin of the Universe) anymore than I can. I note that the presenter of the video did not explain it either.

So, what's your point?

It's a question evolutionists can't answer -- yet evolution wouldn't be around had it not happened.

Go figure, eh?

So do you see what I am getting at?

1) AV presents a video which claims that we are supposed to be embarrassed at not being able to explain the origin of the universe.

2) I reply that there is no need for us to be embarrassed. He and the video presenter cannot explain it either.

3) AV replies with the above retort.

4) I point out that not understanding the origin of something or how something works does not mean that we have no evidence for its reality. And, I might add, not understanding how something originates does not mean that we have no idea how it works.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

"If I assert incredible things without evidence then people who don't already agree with me won't believe me!" isn't a profound statement, it's just stating the obvious.

That is a awful answer.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

I think maybe you need a break from CF.

Just a suggestion.

Hitchslap why can't you prove the verse wrong?

If there is no God, saying Jesus is The Lord would carry no weight with a real atheist.