Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Adam was made from the dust of the ground.....
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BobRyan" data-source="post: 69711736" data-attributes="member: 235244"><p>to "pretend" that blind faith evolutionists do not start with some simple single-celled less-than-bacteria life form and then story-tell-it up to horse or rabbit - is to "pretend" that all the books on evolution "don't exist".</p><p></p><p>And we all know it.</p><p></p><p>So while you may find this very pointed summary of the laughable religion of blind-faith-evolutionism "inconvenient" - yet you provide no evidence against it as a summary except "your preference".</p><p></p><p>Blind faith evolutionism says "<span style="color: #ff0000">a pile of dirt will sure-enough turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently talented and large pile of dirt (Earth) and a sufficiently talented and long period of time filled with improbable just-so stories that are easy enough to tell - but they are not science</span>".</p><p></p><p>Dawkins provides the "improbable" adjective.</p><p>Patterson provides the "stories that are easy enough to tell - but they are not science" descriptive.</p><p>Every goofy evolution text on the planet provides the "start with simple life form - get to horse over time" model.</p><p></p><p>All of them - pro-evolution sources.</p><p></p><p>And... we all know it.</p><p></p><p>======================</p><p></p><p>So then if you and the evolution text book writers do not prefer to summarize your beliefs in the short pointed form "<span style="color: #ff0000">a pile of dirt will sure-enough turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently talented and large pile of dirt (Earth) and a sufficiently talented and long period of time filled with improbable just-so stories that are easy enough to tell - but they are not science</span>" since it exposes the perfidity in the argument for faith in evolutionism - that is understandable.</p><p></p><p>But if you can challenge an actual fact given in that summary - it would be more 'objective' than just "we don't like to say it that way because it exposes the flaw in our story".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Indeed and the atheist would argue that it is not an "eternal amoeba" that starts life - but rather that the earth formed from the accretion disc of the sun (or of "some sun") and then life on earth eventually 'arose' the dust, rock, gas etc starting point.</p><p></p><p>Hince the well stated and simplified 'pile of dirt'. -- irrefutable.</p><p></p><p>And "sufficiently talented" deals with the claim that all of this grand story telling deals requires that it is inherent in the properties of matter itself - to do what was done -- rather than a divine being causing it. -- irrefutable.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Indeed the "story" is that once you get to some single celled bacteria - over time you will get to "horse".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Which is where the addition of " <span style="color: #ff0000">a sufficiently talented and long period of time filled with improbable just-so stories that are easy enough to tell - but they are not science</span>" comes in.</p><p></p><p>Rather than refuting the details in that summary - you appear to be confirming every one!!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again the fact that you prefer not to summarize your beliefs in the details that you cannot at all refute - is a given.</p><p>The fact that evolutionist sources would seek to avoid that level of candor is also not a proof against it.</p><p></p><p>==============================================================</p><p></p><p></p><p>There are a great many ways to simulate time in the lab as we know in cases where producing oil or coal or diamonds is the objective when under normal conditions it would take longer. But in the summary statement that aspect is not mentioned at all -- rather the summary I give just states the "story" we are getting from believers in evolutionism.</p><p></p><p>Certainly the Bible account can be summarized as 'infinite God came to earth - formatted it for life and then created life on earth in stages over a period of 6 earth days - and rested the 7th day" --</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Another sign of your 'belief system' - try to confine yourself to actual fact.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 69711736, member: 235244"] to "pretend" that blind faith evolutionists do not start with some simple single-celled less-than-bacteria life form and then story-tell-it up to horse or rabbit - is to "pretend" that all the books on evolution "don't exist". And we all know it. So while you may find this very pointed summary of the laughable religion of blind-faith-evolutionism "inconvenient" - yet you provide no evidence against it as a summary except "your preference". Blind faith evolutionism says "[COLOR=#ff0000]a pile of dirt will sure-enough turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently talented and large pile of dirt (Earth) and a sufficiently talented and long period of time filled with improbable just-so stories that are easy enough to tell - but they are not science[/COLOR]". Dawkins provides the "improbable" adjective. Patterson provides the "stories that are easy enough to tell - but they are not science" descriptive. Every goofy evolution text on the planet provides the "start with simple life form - get to horse over time" model. All of them - pro-evolution sources. And... we all know it. ====================== So then if you and the evolution text book writers do not prefer to summarize your beliefs in the short pointed form "[COLOR=#ff0000]a pile of dirt will sure-enough turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently talented and large pile of dirt (Earth) and a sufficiently talented and long period of time filled with improbable just-so stories that are easy enough to tell - but they are not science[/COLOR]" since it exposes the perfidity in the argument for faith in evolutionism - that is understandable. But if you can challenge an actual fact given in that summary - it would be more 'objective' than just "we don't like to say it that way because it exposes the flaw in our story". Indeed and the atheist would argue that it is not an "eternal amoeba" that starts life - but rather that the earth formed from the accretion disc of the sun (or of "some sun") and then life on earth eventually 'arose' the dust, rock, gas etc starting point. Hince the well stated and simplified 'pile of dirt'. -- irrefutable. And "sufficiently talented" deals with the claim that all of this grand story telling deals requires that it is inherent in the properties of matter itself - to do what was done -- rather than a divine being causing it. -- irrefutable. Indeed the "story" is that once you get to some single celled bacteria - over time you will get to "horse". Which is where the addition of " [COLOR=#ff0000]a sufficiently talented and long period of time filled with improbable just-so stories that are easy enough to tell - but they are not science[/COLOR]" comes in. Rather than refuting the details in that summary - you appear to be confirming every one!! Again the fact that you prefer not to summarize your beliefs in the details that you cannot at all refute - is a given. The fact that evolutionist sources would seek to avoid that level of candor is also not a proof against it. ============================================================== There are a great many ways to simulate time in the lab as we know in cases where producing oil or coal or diamonds is the objective when under normal conditions it would take longer. But in the summary statement that aspect is not mentioned at all -- rather the summary I give just states the "story" we are getting from believers in evolutionism. Certainly the Bible account can be summarized as 'infinite God came to earth - formatted it for life and then created life on earth in stages over a period of 6 earth days - and rested the 7th day" -- Another sign of your 'belief system' - try to confine yourself to actual fact. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Adam was made from the dust of the ground.....
Top
Bottom