A question I don't think creationists will answer.

[USincognito]

Ok, back and as I expected nothing as far as evidence that all life we observe today is solely and completely by natural mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

I can honestly say that I was expecting as much.

Dishonest, substance free trolling. Nothing more.

 

[justlookinla]

Dishonest, substance free trolling. Nothing more.

If you want an example of dishonesty, simply watch those post concerning evolution as if it's a single view of micro and macro (Darwinist creationism) evolution.

It's not. And each time there isn't a distinction between the two, then the response will be a post pointing out the difference between the two.

 

[bhsmte]

Dishonest, substance free trolling. Nothing more.

It's a requirement for him. His hole is so deep, he has no choice and his psyche will allow no other option.

 

[justlookinla]

It's a requirement for him. His hole is so deep, he has no choice and his psyche will allow no other option.

Ouch!

 

[bhsmte]

Ouch!

Rub some dirt on it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, back and as I expected nothing as far as evidence that all life we observe today is solely and completely by natural mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

I can honestly say that I was expecting as much.

The presentation of evidence is in your hands.

Remember the 9th Commandment. You agreed to learn what is and what is not evidence first. You ran off before the lesson was thoroughly learned.

 

[justlookinla]

The presentation of evidence is in your hands.

Remember the 9th Commandment. You agreed to learn what is and what is not evidence first. You ran off before the lesson was thoroughly learned.

You claimed to have "mountains of evidence", so far you've not given a teaspoon full.

As I expected.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You claimed to have "mountains of evidence", so far you've not given a teaspoon full.

As I expected.

Quit trolling. You agreed to perform a very small deed to see that evidence.

You have yet to finish your part of the bargain. I am patient. I can point out every day how you did not follow through with your end of the bargain. I can link the post where you agreed. If I recall correctly it was post 216 on this thread. If I am wrong I can still find it.

 

[justlookinla]

Here is post #216, it's not even from me.

What in the name of all that is good and righteous is the 'law of clade'?

Quit trolling. You agreed to perform a very small deed to see that evidence.

You have yet to finish your part of the bargain. I am patient. I can point out every day how you did not follow through with your end of the bargain. I can link the post where you agreed. If I recall correctly it was post 216 on this thread. If I am wrong I can still find it.

You're one confused individual. What bargain did I make with you. You're the one who claimed to have "mountains of evidence" for the view that all life is entirely, solely, completely, totally by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

So far, you haven't given a thimbleful and of course you aren't. What you're now going to do is to attempt to deflect the focus from your false claim to something else.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Subduction Zone

In other words the theory of evolution supports the idea of a kind only giving rise to other animals of the same kind.
​

Well, there are all kinds of dogs. Maybe they mean breed.

Dogs are mentioned in the Bible, both young dogs and old dogs.
Doesn't say what breed they are:

YLT Search Results for "dogs"
"dogs"
occurs 23 times in 22 verses in the YLT.

YLT Search Results for "little" AND "dogs"
"little dogs"
occurs in 4 verses in the YLT.

Mat 15:27
And she said, 'Yes, sir, for even the little dogs do eat of the crumbs that are falling from their lords' table;'

Luk 16:21
and desiring to be filled from the crumbs that are falling from the table of the rich man;
yea, also the dogs, coming, were licking his sores.

Rev 22:15
and without are the dogs, and the sorcerers and the whoremongers and the murderers and the idolaters and every one who is loving and is doing a lie.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is post #216, it's not even from me.





You're one confused individual. What bargain did I make with you. You're the one who claimed to have "mountains of evidence" for the view that all life is entirely, solely, completely, totally by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

So far, you haven't given a thimbleful and of course you aren't. What you're now going to do is to attempt to deflect the focus from your false claim to something else.

It was only yesterday and you forgot already?

Like I said I thought the post # was 216. I was wrong. I also said I could find the post where you agreed to learn what qualifies as evidence if you continued to break your word. I did. It was post #161:



http://www.christianforums.com/t7271368-17/#post65821185

So are you simple another dishonest creationist? I have no problem with that, i just like to know ahead of time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dogs are mentioned in the Bible, both young dogs and old dogs.
Doesn't say what breed they are:

YLT Search Results for "dogs"
"dogs"
occurs 23 times in 22 verses in the YLT.

YLT Search Results for "little" AND "dogs"
"little dogs"
occurs in 4 verses in the YLT.

Mat 15:27
And she said, 'Yes, sir, for even the little dogs do eat of the crumbs that are falling from their lords' table;'

Luk 16:21
and desiring to be filled from the crumbs that are falling from the table of the rich man;
yea, also the dogs, coming, were licking his sores.

Rev 22:15
and without are the dogs, and the sorcerers and the whoremongers and the murderers and the idolaters and every one who is loving and is doing a lie.

.

His post was a joke.

The joke is that creationists are unable to come up with a working definition of "kind". Meanwhile we evolutionists have.

 

[justlookinla]

I will prove it, but on my own terms.

It is obvious that you have no idea what "evidence" is. Don't worry, that is a flaw that many people, even scientists have had.

So once you agree to try to learn what counts as evidence we can continue. Until then I will simply point out that you have no idea what counts as evidence.

Ok.

Go!

It was only yesterday and you forgot already?

Like I said I thought the post # was 216. I was wrong. I also said I could find the post where you agreed to learn what qualifies as evidence if you continued to break your word. I did. It was post #161:



http://www.christianforums.com/t7271368-17/#post65821185

So are you simple another dishonest creationist? I have no problem with that, i just like to know ahead of time.

Now, what exactly do you think I agreed to in post #161?

You're in a tizzy attempting to escape your apparently meaningless claim that you have "mountains of evidence" to support the creationist view that all of life we observe today is solely, totally, completely the result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

You've failed, you've offered nothing, you've made a false claim and now you're trying your best at damage control.

I'll take your future claims with a grain of salt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now, what exactly do you think I agreed to in post #161?

You're in a tizzy attempting to escape your apparently meaningless claim that you have "mountains of evidence" to support the creationist view that all of life we observe today is solely, totally, completely the result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

You've failed, you've offered nothing, you've made a false claim and now you're trying your best at damage control.

I'll take your future claims with a grain of salt.

What I said was more than clear. I said:

"So once you agree to try to learn what counts as evidence we can continue. Until then I will simply point out that you have no idea what counts as evidence."

Your response was:

"Ok. Go."

What could the "Ok" have been besides an agreement to learn what counts as evidence.

I asked you if you were honest. You ran away from the question. I am beginning to see why.

Linky: http://www.christianforums.com/t7271368-17/

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, it is a lie to claim that I made a false claim. Please do not repeat it. I told you more than once what you needed to do to see my evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

What I said was more than clear. I said:

"So once you agree to try to learn what counts as evidence we can continue. Until then I will simply point out that you have no idea what counts as evidence."

Your response was:

"Ok. Go."

What could the "Ok" have been besides an agreement to learn what counts as evidence.

I asked you if you were honest. You ran away from the question. I am beginning to see why.

Linky: http://www.christianforums.com/t7271368-17/

Really, what kind of question do you think you're asking someone when you ask them if they're honest and what kind of answer are you expecting? Think about the absurdity of your question. If I answer, no I'm not honest, that means the answer I just gave was a lie, which then means that I'm honest about being dishonest. But it would be impossible for me to give you an honest answer if I'm dishonest. Likewise, if I answer yes, I'm honest but I'm really dishonest, then my answer is a lie. Your question is yet another meaningless question.

Ok, point out what counts as evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

By the way, it is a lie to claim that I made a false claim. Please do not repeat it. I told you more than once what you needed to do to see my evidence.

I can only conclude that you've made a false claim about having "mountains of evidence" for the creationist viewpoint that all life we observe today was created entirely, totally, solely by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form long long ago. You've evaded and evaded and evaded. If you have it, post it.

I know you aren't, but it's interesting to see how long you'll continue with your apparently false claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really, what kind of question do you think you're asking someone when you ask them if they're honest and what kind of answer are you expecting? Think about the absurdity of your question. If I answer, no I'm not honest, that means the answer I just gave was a lie, which then means that I'm honest about being dishonest. But it would be impossible for me to give you an honest answer if I'm dishonest. Likewise, if I answer yes, I'm honest but I'm really dishonest, then my answer is a lie. Your question is yet another meaningless question.

Ok, point out what counts as evidence.

I expect an honest answer. Of course, a person is not too likely to ask that question unless someone has not been honest. Yes, it is a bit absurd, but then you miss the point of the question. The main point of such a question was to get you to realize that you have not been honest.

Christians are supposed to be honest. It is even in your book. It is the Ninth of Ten commandments.

And the deal was not that I "point out what counts as evidence". You have to participate. You have to learn what and why evidence takes the form that it does.

But I will start. It is easy for anyone to deny evidence when it is presented to them. I have seen not only creationists do this but even scientists do this sometimes when dealing with other scientists.

You may not realize this but you have denied evidence that has been presented to you. Now wouldn't you like to know how to tell if some data is scientific evidence or not? A method so that even if you disagreed with the conclusions that you could know if the other side had evidence, or if your side had evidence for that matter?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can only conclude that you've made a false claim about having "mountains of evidence" for the creationist viewpoint that all life we observe today was created entirely, totally, solely by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form long long ago. You've evaded and evaded and evaded. If you have it, post it.

I know you aren't, but it's interesting to see how long you'll continue with your apparently false claim.

Then that was a foolish assumption on your part. I have not evaded in the least. From the start I told you what you had to do to see my evidence. So far the failure has all been on your side.

And my claim is only "apparently false" to an uneducated person. It is foolish to argue from ignorance.

 

[justlookinla]

I expect an honest answer. Of course, a person is not too likely to ask that question unless someone has not been honest. Yes, it is a bit absurd, but then you miss the point of the question. The main point of such a question was to get you to realize that you have not been honest.

Ok.

Christians are supposed to be honest. It is even in your book. It is the Ninth of Ten commandments.

How about non-Christians? Are they supposed to be honest also?

And the deal was not that I "point out what counts as evidence". You have to participate. You have to learn what and why evidence takes the form that it does.

But I will start. It is easy for anyone to deny evidence when it is presented to them. I have seen not only creationists do this but even scientists do this sometimes when dealing with other scientists.

You may not realize this but you have denied evidence that has been presented to you. Now wouldn't you like to know how to tell if some data is scientific evidence or not? A method so that even if you disagreed with the conclusions that you could know if the other side had evidence, or if your side had evidence for that matter?

"Mountains of evidence". Where is it?