A question I don't think creationists will answer.

[biggles53]

If there are creationists' half truths, then that is like you are admitting to evolutionists' half truths, fables, & lies, right?

We all can be "cute" when we want to be too.

It all adds up to doing your own search just as believers are to lean on Him for help in discerning the truth and not rely on anyone else to do that search for them.

And your reply was hardly conducive to the discussion, now was it?

Got any proof that genetic information has been observed as added to a living organism? No. And why not? I point to the laws of science as to why not.

What do you point to? Charles Xavier School for Gifted Children? Oh wait. That does not exist.

More "cuteness".

Let me know when you can get a pair of wings that flies and still be able to reproduce after you become that new kind. Maybe then, it will become the law of evolution, but it will never happen.

And yes, I am fully aware that science are mixing animal and humans DNA invitro with gene splicing for observation but that doesn't count because it is still by design and if given "birth:, they will not be able to reproduce

Do you have even the slightest idea of what you are saying....!?

This hotch-potch version of Frankensteinian interbreeding has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with evolutionary theory...!

Here's a clue....before you decide to begin criticising an idea, it might be wise to find out a little about that which you think you are attacking...

Oi vay....!

 

[Tellastory]

No, it's not. Science doesn't offer proof.

And yet people believe in the evolution theory. Interesting.

'Kind' is a word that has no real meaning in biology.

Except that I did explain that term in that a cow will always be a cow in spite of the variation of cows one can have.

You're making a lot of statements with no backing whatsoever. Science declares no such thing.

You mean false science declares no such thing because they keep modifying the evolution theory.

The 1st law doesn't say that and has nothing to do with DNA.

Nothing can be created nor destroyed in our given universe as created things cannot come from nothing and what is destroyed cannot become nothing.

I had applied that towards the DNA as in your DNA is not going to get addeded genetic information to suddenly start sprouting wings.

Not what the 2nd law says, either.

Oh please, continue giving no corrections whatsoever. I am familiar with the evolutionists double talk as if these laws do not really mean what they say and I am not buying it.

Course as far as your are concern, the laws of science are not proof as science cannot prove anything.

It's not supposed, anymore than an atom is supposed to look like a bunch of little balls. It's a representation meant to give children the general idea of the principle of superposition. No one ever said that the world is supposed to look exactly like the chart we see in textbooks.

Oh that is cute. Have a reference to back up that claim? Using the model of the atom does not apply.

Except we don't just find any fossils around this time. We only see the emergence of certain groups.

Are you saying there is proof of that? And here I thought science cannot prove anything.

Funnily enough, I often hear creationists tell me that fish would have been fine during the flood, but now you seem to be saying it would have killed them off, too.

The salinity tolerance is the factor as to why many would survive, but they can't once the floodwaters run off and they find themselves on land.

We don't find fossils on TOP of mountains, we find them INSIDE of mountains. And from what we know of how mountains form, it's not a big surprise. There's no need to invoke a global flood.

That is a cute deflection as well. Buried in sentiments is what makes a fossil.

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA - NYTimes.com

In spite of the evolutionary point of view of this article, funny how fossilized animal bones are supposedly found in that same sediment.

As it is found elsewhere in mass graves on other mountaintops.

So you can choose to believe what you want to believe but that is not going to alter God's coming judgment of fire on the earth.

 

[biggles53]

Buried in sentiments is what makes a fossil.
.

No....buried in sentiments is what makes a creationist.....!

(Here all week......!)

 

[justlookinla]

And yet people believe in the evolution theory. Interesting.

And neither is science interested in truth, according to some.

Except that I did explain that term in that a cow will always be a cow in spite of the variation of cows one can have.

Yep, that's a fact. That's truth.....which seemingly isn't important to some.

[QUTOE] You mean false science declares no such thing because they keep modifying the evolution theory.[/QUOTE]

How many times has the psuedo-science of Darwinism been wrong? A hundred? A thousand? But NOW they have it right?

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Nothing can be created nor destroyed in our given universe as created things cannot come from nothing and what is destroyed cannot become nothing.

In the atheist creationist story, a single life form exploded with the power of naturalistic forces to become the incomprehensible complexity and variety of life today. Of course there's no evidence for that, but it's an interesting faith-based creationist view nonetheless.

I had applied that towards the DNA as in your DNA is not going to get addeded genetic information to suddenly start sprouting wings.

True.

Oh please, continue giving no corrections whatsoever. I am familiar with the evolutionists double talk as if these laws do not really mean what they say and I am not buying it.

Yes, double talk, 'scientificspeak' is invoked when Darwinists are backed into a corner.

Course as far as your are concern, the laws of science are not proof as science cannot prove anything.

And don't forget, science isn't interested in the truth, according to some.

 

[biggles53]

And yet people believe in the evolution theory. Interesting.

No...."believe" is what you funny folk do. People accept the explanation provided by evolutionary theory, in light of the evidence and the testing that it has undergone for the last 160 years...

Except that I did explain that term in that a cow will always be a cow in spite of the variation of cows one can have.

Great...! You're the first creationist with a real definition of "kind"...

So, please explain....is a horse and a cow different kinds..? But then, is a horse and a donkey the same kind, because I can have a horse breed with a donkey and produce a mule...? So maybe they're 'kinda' a 'kind'..? I dunno....you're the expert after all...

You mean false science declares no such thing because they keep modifying the evolution theory.

Oh...you mean "modified" like all freaking scientific theories get modified....?

Nothing can be created nor destroyed in our given universe as created things cannot come from nothing and what is destroyed cannot become nothing.

Ummm.....except, of course, that is EXACTLY what you believe...that our universe was made from nothing...!

I had applied that towards the DNA as in your DNA is not going to get addeded genetic information to suddenly start sprouting wings.

Please explain how bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics...?

Please explain how bacteria developed the ability to digest nylon..?

Please explain how E. coli developed the ability to digest citrase...?

Are you saying there is proof of that? And here I thought science cannot prove anything.

Oh boy.....one more time..

Science 101........science does NOT deal in proofs...you need to go next door to the Mathematics department for those. The scientific method is based around the collection of EVIDENCE and the formation of HYPOTHESES to account for that evidence. These hypotheses are then TESTED, in an attempt to prove them FALSE. After rigorous and sustained testing, a hypothesis may survive in confidence to finally become a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, which represents the best extant explanation for a given phenomenon. Theories continue to be tested, as the door is always left open for the possibility of new knowledge being introduced.


And someone with more patience than I can deal with the remaining nonsense...

 

[AV1611VET]

the door is always left open for the possibility of new knowledge being introduced.

I love what Fred G Sanford said to Lamont in one episode of Sanford and Son:

"Open up a window, son ... let these flies out."

 

[Tellastory]

No...."believe" is what you funny folk do.

I was merely being funny like you, but I'll stop now since you are opposing yourself and see it not. My mistake to play with you.

People accept the explanation provided by evolutionary theory, in light of the evidence and the testing that it has undergone for the last 160 years...

Such a broad general statement that is hardly true at all.

Great...! You're the first creationist with a real definition of "kind"...

So, please explain....is a horse and a cow different kinds..? But then, is a horse and a donkey the same kind, because I can have a horse breed with a donkey and produce a mule...? So maybe they're 'kinda' a 'kind'..? I dunno....you're the expert after all...

Can that result of a horse & a donkey continue to breed? No. Does that make you wonder how macroevolution can occur at all? It should.

Oh...you mean "modified" like all freaking scientific theories get modified....?

ahem... remember this quote of yours below?

People accept the explanation provided by evolutionary theory, in light of the evidence and the testing that it has undergone for the last 160 years...

So what is fact and thus modified proves what? That it wasn't a fact at all in the first place. So how do you know that the modified one is true?

Ummm.....except, of course, that is EXACTLY what you believe...that our universe was made from nothing...!

That means God is not confined by the limits of this universe since He spoke it into being and set everything up.

Please explain how bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics...?

Please explain how bacteria developed the ability to digest nylon..?

Please explain how E. coli developed the ability to digest citrase...?

Please explain why men deevolve to their neanderthalic state at the presence of bodacious babes?

Please explain the apelike behaviours exhibited by being around scantlily clad females.

Please explain why some men resort to the cromagnum state of clubbing a woman to mate with her.

See how that works? My questions does not prove the de evolution theory any more than your questions proved the evolution theory.

By answering my question relatistically, you'll be able to answer yours.

Oh boy.....one more time..

Science 101........science does NOT deal in proofs...you need to go next door to the Mathematics department for those. The scientific method is based around the collection of EVIDENCE and the formation of HYPOTHESES to account for that evidence. These hypotheses are then TESTED, in an attempt to prove them FALSE. After rigorous and sustained testing, a hypothesis may survive in confidence to finally become a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, which represents the best extant explanation for a given phenomenon. Theories continue to be tested, as the door is always left open for the possibility of new knowledge being introduced.

And someone with more patience than I can deal with the remaining nonsense...

Nonsense is saying something like this and yet say that the evolution theory has been proven true. See how you are opposing yourself?

Do you feel open to the idea of new knowledge that we are de-evolving? We can observe such behaviour and transitions right before our very eyes, which is alot more readily observed than the transitional fossils of the evolution theory. And yet, somehow, I do not believe you are open to such "new knowledge" as you claim. BTW: de-evolution is nonsense as well.

Added: apparently I need the Lord's help to stop playing with you.

 

[USincognito]

Why do people keep reviving old threads?

Because AV doesn't take any of this seriously and I continually wonder why anyone takes him seriously. Consol was banned and had almost daily sockpuppets created and banned over years. This thread should have been immediately locked instead of generating 25 new responses to over six year old messages in a thread by a banned troll.

Readers Digest version - trolling.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do people keep reviving old threads?

Because AV ...

I'm leader of the pack, am I?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by biggles53

Isn't that EXACTLY what you believe...? That your god magically 'spoke' the universe into existence from nothing...?
​

No.

God miraculously spoke the universe into existence from nothing.

What he said!

Dan 4:2
It is my pleasure to tell you about the miraculous signs and wonders that the Most High God has performed for me.

Mat 13:54
Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed.
“Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked.

.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by PsychoSarah

Most of those who participated then aren't on here now.
​

Over the years of participating on various forums, I find that participants ebb and flow, come and go, here today, gone tomorrow.
At least that keeps the forums somewhat fresh.

Sounds good to me.......

Jas 4:
14 whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow.
For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qxSwJC3Ly0


.

 

[Tellastory]

I apologize for adding to a trolling mocker's thread.

Proverbs 9:7He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot. 8Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.

Proverbs 14:6A scorner seeketh wisdom, and findeth it not: but knowledge is easy unto him that understandeth.

Proverbs 15:12A scorner loveth not one that reproveth him: neither will he go unto the wise.

Proverbs 19:25Smite a scorner, and the simple will beware: and reprove one that hath understanding, and he will understand knowledge.....29Judgments are prepared for scorners, and stripes for the back of fools.

Proverbs 21:11When the scorner is punished, the simple is made wise: and when the wise is instructed, he receiveth knowledge.

Proverbs 22:10Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease.

Yep. Better to ban trolls and closed their threads.

 

[South Bound]

Have you ever tried to extend that line of thought one step further? Who designed your God? Surely he didn't just magically appear from nothing, right?

God is not physical or corporeal.

Isn't that EXACTLY what you believe...? That your god magically 'spoke' the universe into existence from nothing...?

Perhaps you missed the "design requires a designer" portion of my thread.

Irrelevant. According to you, your god exists....in whatever form. Also according to you, nothing can exist unless it was designed. So, what or who designed your god? If you say that it exists as some kind of 'exception', then the same exception can be applied to anything else in existence...

Google the phrase "the aseity of God".

I missed nothing. The part of your comment that I criticised was that you claim that nothing can be created from 'nothing'......and yet, that is EXACTLY what you claim that your god did....

Correct. God created the universe from nothing. However, you're claiming that something merely appeared from nothing with no designer or creator.

God not being physical doesn't somehow make it immune to the need for it to have a creator or an origin.

If god has design, then by logic it too must have a designer.

Having made a good faith effort (no pun intended) in the past to discuss spiritual things with you, I've learned the hard way that it's just a waste of time, because you will not listen.

So, rather than ask me, just google the phrase "the aseity of God" and you'll find numerous resources that answer this question. Among the better ones is the one by R.C. Sproul.

 

[PsychoSarah]

God is not physical or corporeal.



Perhaps you missed the "design requires a designer" portion of my thread.

God not being physical doesn't somehow make it immune to the need for it to have a creator or an origin.

If god has design, then by logic it too must have a designer.

 

[ChetSinger]

I became a creationist after listening to 1-minute "Answers in Genesis" blurbs on Christian radio while driving to work each morning.

Prior to that I hadn't given the subject much thought, but probably would've been classified as some kind of theistic evolutionist.

 

[biggles53]

I was merely being funny like you, but I'll stop now since you are opposing yourself and see it not. My mistake to play with you.

No...your mistake was thinking that you know something about a topic that you actually know nothing about at all...

Now, pay attention and you'll learn something...and it's free...

Such a broad general statement that is hardly true at all.

Which part do you find untrue...? That it has lasted for 160 years...? That's easy...it's a matter of public record when Darwin first published the theory.... That it's widely accepted...? Again, easy to demonstrate, either in the wider community, or amongst the specialists in the scientific field. Whether it sits well with you or not, the fact remains that it is one of the most strongly supported theories in all of science...and, in a perverse way, we actually have nut job creationists to thank in part...because of the continual religious attacks on the theory during that time, more people have been motivated to test its claims.

And they have come through with flying colours....every time...

Can that result of a horse & a donkey continue to breed? No. Does that make you wonder how macroevolution can occur at all? It should.

And here we see the nub of your ignorance.... You apparently have the Kirk Cameron view of evolution...that, if it were an accurate theory, we should see the sudden appearance of 'Crocoducks', or 'Fisho-cows' ...

Well, Cameron is a mediocre actor...but an absolute crap biologist...!

ahem... remember this quote of yours below?



So what is fact and thus modified proves what? That it wasn't a fact at all in the first place. So how do you know that the modified one is true?

Oh dear....you're worse than I thought...

That scientific theories are able to be modified is one of the strengths of the scientific method...! If that were not the case, we'd still be believing that the world was flat, that the sun orbited us, that disease came from 'bad air' or 'demons' and that human flight was impossible because it insulted one god or another...

Get this into your head.....ALL scientific theories give us the best possible explanation CURRENTLY...but, because of the basic nature of scientific enquiry, ALL OF THEM are capable of being modified as new evidence comes to light... This is why you are no longer squatting in a cave all your life, eating your food raw, until you finally die of some disease you can't treat...!

That means God is not confined by the limits of this universe since He spoke it into being and set everything up.

Special Pleading.....do you know what that means...? It's a nice, logical expression which simply put means that you are a hypocrite....

Please explain why men deevolve to their neanderthalic state at the presence of bodacious babes?

Please explain the apelike behaviours exhibited by being around scantlily clad females.

Please explain why some men resort to the cromagnum state of clubbing a woman to mate with her.

See how that works? My questions does not prove the de evolution theory any more than your questions proved the evolution theory.

Really...? It's much worse than I thought...

What the hell is de-evolution...? From which orifice did you drag that idea...?

Nonsense is saying something like this and yet say that the evolution theory has been proven true. See how you are opposing yourself?

Again, science does not deal in "proof"....it deals in providing best available explanations... If you don't learn anything else, please try to hold onto that one....

Do you feel open to the idea of new knowledge that we are de-evolving? We can observe such behaviour and transitions right before our very eyes, which is alot more readily observed than the transitional fossils of the evolution theory. And yet, somehow, I do not believe you are open to such "new knowledge" as you claim. BTW: de-evolution is nonsense as well.

Any time you would like to present evidence for any of your crazy ideas, would be just peachy...

Added: apparently I need the Lord's help to stop playing with you.

No...you just need to start THINKING FOR YOURSELF...!

 

[biggles53]

God is not physical or corporeal.

Irrelevant. According to you, your god exists....in whatever form. Also according to you, nothing can exist unless it was designed. So, what or who designed your god? If you say that it exists as some kind of 'exception', then the same exception can be applied to anything else in existence...

Perhaps you missed the "design requires a designer" portion of my thread.

I missed nothing. The part of your comment that I criticised was that you claim that nothing can be created from 'nothing'......and yet, that is EXACTLY what you claim that your god did....

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I apologize for adding to a trolling mocker's thread..........................

Yep. Better to ban trolls and closed their threads.

Ya have anyone in mind?


.

 

[stevevw]

Steve, there are many scientists who are Christian and believe in a creator God. They don't bring their faith into doing science however. This is what a number posting here have so much difficulty understanding. For millions of people, there is no conflict between science and religion.

Dizredux

I agree, science is relevant and has its place. It can give meaning to the world around us and give us many great things that make our lives much more comfortable. But then there can be a point where science cannot always be the answer. It is knowing where that point can finish and where Gods greatness comes in. Its accepting that both can play a part and have their own place in the scheme of things. But it doesn't mean that one is rejected while the other is accepted as both can live with each other and play their role while even complimenting each other.

 

[stevevw]

No, it was entirely called for...and your detection system is spot on....moronic ideas deserve to be called for what they are...

So I guess you haven't got a sense of humor.

Relying upon a world view that has its basis in pretending to know that which you don't know deserves a harsh response....I find it insulting when adults claim that using their brains in a childish way is legitimate...

I dont quite follow. Science can explain many things around us and we all accept that. But a Christian who believes that there is a God cant explain God completely through science because God is in the supernatural realm. They know this and that is why faith is the key element for their belief.

Heb 11:1 (KJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

We can possible show some indirect evidence as to why there may be a God or some design by a creator in the universe and life.But we are not going to win a debate about proving God with direct evidence through science. So we are smart enough to know where to draw the line. But the point is our options are not limited to what we can see in front of us and we can allow other possibilities of what makes things tick besides the material world.

And every single one of them tossed his religion to one side while he was doing his science...! Furthermore, many of them had to battle through the stultifying, mind-numbing resistance of religious protest to even do their science in the first place...!

Well of course thats how science works it cannot allow for unprovable things or things that cannot be tested and verified. But you say it like they tossed their belief out the window for good. No they didn't. Despite being some of the greatest minds they kept their faith and believed that despite them being able to understand their world through science that there was still a God who went beyond their science. In fact their science made more sense in the scheme of things because of belief in God.