Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Post solid evidence please that the books were not written within the life time of the followers of Christ and those that were with Christ.
ok so back the real questions I have asked of you guys,
why is it that not one evolutionist will debate any one of the high profile creationists out there?
secondly, how is it the nothing exploded? In the Big bang?
What fueled it?
nothing can't fuel nothing correct?
Also explain how macro evolution is possible?
also how is it that That fishy fish life swam until they ran out of water, climbed up on shore, developed lungs, grew legs, became titans of their time, frayed the scales til they became feathers, shrunk, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around, and became birds. Or for men- the fishy fish swam til they ran out water, climbed up on land, grew lungs and fur this time, scampered around at the feet of giant tweety bird T rexes, til they ditched walking on all fours for two legged transportation, climbed trees, jumped down from trees to build a fire, shed their fur, grew a bigger brain, and now believes we came from monkeys.
Grady,
Can I suggest that, before you try asking questions like this, you actually do some research into the subject you're criticising.....?
You come off looking very, very silly with these questions expressed as they are......in fact, all you do is to provide further ammunition for those of us who would claim that creationists generally don't have a clue about evolutionary biology and are prepared to lie in a desperate attempt to prop up their discredited belief structures.....
again no answer sir,
so this would be a strawman fallacy.
and a red herring.
so please just answer the questions.
No, since Ken agreed to do it initially with certain conditions (having a PhD in the debate), and then once those conditions were met (by PZ Myers joining in) he bailed.
again no answer sir,
so this would be a strawman fallacy.
and a red herring.
so please just answer the questions.
lasthero said:And there are Bibles in those places. What's your point?
I enjoyed debate so I signed up for the debate 2 class. They ended up joining the graduate with the undergrad class because that was the only way they could come up with enough people to have any class at all. The instructor said don't worry I will give you a break on your grade. I did not need it, those grad students were a bunch of creme puffs that did not put much work at all into what they were doing.I have debated phd's before, no biggy
I enjoyed debate so I signed up for the debate 2 class. They ended up joining the graduate with the undergrad class because that was the only way they could come up with enough people to have any class at all. The instructor said don't worry I will give you a break on your grade. I did not need it, those grad students were a bunch of creme puffs that did not put much work at all into what they were doing.
I enjoyed debate so I signed up for the debate 2 class. They ended up joining the graduate with the undergrad class because that was the only way they could come up with enough people to have any class at all. The instructor said don't worry I will give you a break on your grade. I did not need it, those grad students were a bunch of creme puffs that did not put much work at all into what they were doing.
Then why did Ken back down as soon as his unnecessary conditions were met?
There is a creationist on you tube, that has never ever lost a debate. Look it up .
Answer what....!??
Questions that just don't make sense...??
As has been explained patiently by others, evolutionary theory makes NONE of the claims that you want it to explain......... and, in an UNRELATED field, the Big Bang wasn't claimed to be an 'explosion'.....
And you're pointing the finger at OTHERS creating straw men....??
Sheesh....!
I'll credit you with one reasonable question.......how is macro evolution possible?
In the same way that micro evolution is......through very small changes taking place over TIME.......the usual analogy that is employed is to ask you this - if I can take a certain number of small steps to walk to my front gate, why could I not keep taking those small steps and eventually get to the other side of town....?
dad?
If so:
Dad is another poster here: dadwho is that is that another one?
The debate is usually won by whoever puts the most work into research. The Bible itself does not change, even if over time we gain a better understanding of the Bible. The problem with science is their actual "facts" have a half life, so over time their facts change. Look at their Biology book. Campbell is on their 9th edition. Usually the instructor will allow you to use one edition back. So you could use the 8th but they highly recommend getting the most current edition. Because their facts are fluid and in a constant state of change. They cling to their theory. But right now DNA evidence has falsified a lot of their theory that was based on the fossil record. So they are doing what they can to cover that up and salvage what they can. Some evolutionists still teach the old model based on the fossil record and they have not even learned the new model based on the DNA. So when you have a theory that is so unstable from change that puts them on very shaky ground. Where the Bible has remained steadfast and true for over 3700 years. Science works as hard as they can to make science dull and boring. There are a few people like Brian Cox and Neil Tyson De grasses that can make science interesting. But most people work hard to make it is as dull and boring as they can.How is that different from here, where ... scientists think they can override our faith with ... well ... science?
Dad is another poster here: dad
He believes in what is called a Distant* State Past, couple with a Split/Merge model of the universe.
If I understand him correctly, he believes that the universe ran under a different (and purer) set of laws prior to some "split" that began at the Fall and culminated during the time of Peleg.
For instance:
In the future, these traits will be merged back to the way they were before the Fall.
- levitation surrendered to gravity
- telepathy surrendered to voice communication
- the speed of light was slowed down
- immortality (of the body) surrendered to death
- knowledge surrendered to ignorance
- teleportation surrendered to travel
- communication between man and animals was severed
- communication between animals surrendered to zoosemiotics
Dad is currently on vacation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?