A fascinating video on the vacuity of Macro Evolution for

[AV1611VET]

One can't do so if one has no understanding of the sciences at all.

Bet me.

One doesn't have to understand the sciences, just its antithesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bet me.

One doesn't have to understand the sciences, just its antithesis.

You can try. People will only laugh at you and be in the right when they do so.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can try.

ICR tries, DI tries, Kent Hovind tries, and Ken Ham tries ... along with others.

All it gets is ridicule.

I'm the opposite.

I don't try and get ridicule.

That tells me that either way, we'll get ridiculed.

Which tells me it's not a head problem, it's a heart problem.

People will only laugh at you and be in the right when they do so.

That only teaches kids who read this that laughing at others who don't think like they do is okay.

And you wonder why bullying in school is on the rise?

They see their parents or other adults doing it.

 

[createdtoworship]

Oh it made perfect sense.

"it requires clue?" makes sense? Hardly. Another false claim.

 

[createdtoworship]

So you went back on your word. I supported my claim, you simply could not admit to it. You could not even make one up.

I would ask why creationists are afraid to even try to learn, but we all already know the answer to that one.

Quote mined, I already refuted it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"it requires clue?" makes sense? Hardly. Another false claim.

Just because you did not understand it does not mean that everybody did not understand it.

Sadly you are just confirming his post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Quote mined, I already refuted it.

Nope, you lost. You did not follow through with your word either. You still can. I will still help you understand that video.

Tell me, why is reality so frightening for you?

 

[createdtoworship]

Just because you did not understand it does not mean that everybody did not understand it.

Sadly you are just confirming his post.

confirming an incomplete sentence?

 

[createdtoworship]

Nope, you lost. You did not follow through with your word either. You still can. I will still help you understand that video.

Tell me, why is reality so frightening for you?

I don't watch quote mines. But you can watch my video,which is not a quote mine!

note that until you prove quote mines exist, you cannot get out of the realism of the above video: I am questioning the overuse of quote out of context, and the non existence of quote mining in any legitimate dictionary. What I mean by overuse, is that it is very difficult to prove a quote out of context, and even if you do, it could be that there was a mistake made by the author. What you can say is, "my interpretation is different" and you can prove that. But that is an opinion, but to state that someone quote mined or quoted out of context, no I haven't seen that, even with the "there is no God" verse. I don't interpret that verse the same way you do. But that does not mean that it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is wrong. It could be the Bible was in error, a typo, or God wanted to say "there is no God" proving himself wrong. But I do know that the majority of the Bible mentions God, so it would be inconsistent in my opinion to interpret it that way. But to prove it, well thats not very easy. You can't ask God. We can't put it under a microscope. So your view is in error.

again try to prove any quote out of context/quote mines

I was talking about oranges for 10 minutes, but one minute I was
talking about bananas.

Now, If you quote the banana part, then you have quote mined because it was not in context of the oranges.

But who is to say HE just didn't change opinions or doubt his orange
opinion in the few minutes he debated bananas?

See, quote mining doesn't exist.
It's all a lie of evolutionists.

 

[Cearbhall]

if you don't like your eyes, you can always be a living organ donor. But again most of us don't put our money where our mouth is. talk is cheap

How does this sass refute the point that was made about the flaws of the human eye...?

 

[bhsmte]

How does this sass refute the point that was made about the flaws of the human eye...?

It doesn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

confirming an incomplete sentence?

Nope, confirming his claim that you did not understand.

 

[createdtoworship]

How does this sass refute the point that was made about the flaws of the human eye...?

"1859, Charles Darwin wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” ...

"Nonviability of Transitional Forms—Another problem that plagues the plausibility of natural selection creating new life forms is the fact that transitional forms could not survive. For example, consider the Darwinian assertion that birds evolved gradually from reptiles over long periods of time. This would necessitate a transition from scales to feathers. How could a creature survive that no longer has scales but does not quite have feathers? Feathers are irreducibly complex. A creature with the structure of half a feather has no ability to fly. It would be easy prey on land, in water, and from the air. And as a halfway house between reptiles and birds, it probably wouldn’t be adept at finding food for itself either. So the problem for Darwinists is twofold: first, they have no viable mechanism for getting from reptiles to birds; and second, even if a viable mechanism were discovered, the transitional forms would be unlikely to survive anyway."

above quotes from- Norman Geisler, frank turek - book entitled -I don't have faith enough to be an atheist.

Avian feathers are one example of irreducible complexity and more specifically specified complexity:

a peer review article details it for us:
Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration

a summary review of this particular journal is found at evolutionnews.org:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/peer-reviewed_pro-intelligent042261.html

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't watch quote mines. But you can watch my video,which is not a quote mine!

note that until you prove quote mines exist, you cannot get out of the realism of the above video: I am questioning the overuse of quote out of context, and the non existence of quote mining in any legitimate dictionary. What I mean by overuse, is that it is very difficult to prove a quote out of context, and even if you do, it could be that there was a mistake made by the author. What you can say is, "my interpretation is different" and you can prove that. But that is an opinion, but to state that someone quote mined or quoted out of context, no I haven't seen that, even with the "there is no God" verse. I don't interpret that verse the same way you do. But that does not mean that it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is wrong. It could be the Bible was in error, a typo, or God wanted to say "there is no God" proving himself wrong. But I do know that the majority of the Bible mentions God, so it would be inconsistent in my opinion to interpret it that way. But to prove it, well thats not very easy. You can't ask God. We can't put it under a microscope. So your view is in error.

again try to prove any quote out of context/quote mines

I was talking about oranges for 10 minutes, but one minute I was
talking about bananas.

Now, If you quote the banana part, then you have quote mined because it was not in context of the oranges.

But who is to say HE just didn't change opinions or doubt his orange
opinion in the few minutes he debated bananas?

See, quote mining doesn't exist.
It's all a lie of evolutionists.

It was made by a dishonest creationist that could not understand what was being said.

But you lost regardless. You claimed you would watch a video. You made no qualifiers in that claim. You did not watch it. You did not keep your word.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"1859, Charles Darwin wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” ...

"Nonviability of Transitional Forms—Another problem that plagues the plausibility of natural selection creating new life forms is the fact that transitional forms could not survive. For example, consider the Darwinian assertion that birds evolved gradually from reptiles over long periods of time. This would necessitate a transition from scales to feathers. How could a creature survive that no longer has scales but does not quite have feathers? Feathers are irreducibly complex. A creature with the structure of half a feather has no ability to fly. It would be easy prey on land, in water, and from the air. And as a halfway house between reptiles and birds, it probably wouldn’t be adept at finding food for itself either. So the problem for Darwinists is twofold: first, they have no viable mechanism for getting from reptiles to birds; and second, even if a viable mechanism were discovered, the transitional forms would be unlikely to survive anyway."

above quotes from- Norman Geisler, frank turek - book entitled -I don't have faith enough to be an atheist.

Avian feathers are one example of irreducible complexity and more specifically specified complexity:

a peer review article details it for us:
Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration

a summary review of this particular journal is found at evolutionnews.org:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/peer-reviewed_pro-intelligent042261.html

Turek is amazingly ignorant. Feathers evolved long before flight. And feathers have never been shown to be "irreducibly complex" that is a claim by creationists that has never been validated and has been shown to be false numerous times. There are now countless dinosaurs that were known to have feathers. Feathers on a bird do much more than provide flight. Even flightless avian dinosaurs (aka 'birds') have feathers. Feathers always act as a heat moderator. Birds do not always fly.

Turek merely made a series of strawman arguments to "refute" the theory of evolution. All it takes to refute each of those is to identify the strawman.

 

[createdtoworship]

It was made by a dishonest creationist that could not understand what was being said.

But you lost regardless. You claimed you would watch a video. You made no qualifiers in that claim. You did not watch it. You did not keep your word.

they are quotes, how bad can it be> Full sentences, full paragraphs. everything.

 

[createdtoworship]

Turek is amazingly ignorant. Feathers evolved long before flight. And feathers have never been shown to be "irreducibly complex" that is a claim by creationists that has never been validated and has been shown to be false numerous times. There are now countless dinosaurs that were known to have feathers. Feathers on a bird do much more than provide flight. Even flightless avian dinosaurs (aka 'birds') have feathers. Feathers always act as a heat moderator. Birds do not always fly.

Turek merely made a series of strawman arguments to "refute" the theory of evolution. All it takes to refute each of those is to identify the strawman.

do you have peer review to back up your ignorance?

 

[Cearbhall]

do you have peer review to back up your ignorance?

Oh please. If that were the standard of evidence, Creationism wouldn't be a part of the discussion in the first place. There would be no need for a debate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

they are quotes, how bad can it be> Full sentences, full paragraphs. everything.

Not "paragraphs" Perhaps a full sentence, but I have seen quote mines by creationist of full paragraphs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

do you have peer review to back up your ignorance?

Please, when you are the ignorant one you really should not accuse others of being ignorant.

And yes. There are plenty of peer reviewed articles on feathered dinosaurs:

feathered dinosaurs - Google Scholar

When typing in the search bar I had only gotten part way through "feathered" when feathered dinosaurs came up as a possible search.