Evolution Denies - Please Refute this

[Joshua0]

Yet you still have not provided any evidence.

Evidence for what? The Bible? That is your choice if you want to reject or accept the Word of God. As for me and my house, we will serve God.

 

[Joshua0]

The Bible says it...I BELIEVE IT...and that settles it.

What does the Bible say? There is a lot in the Bible that God is helping me to understand. I am still growing in my wisdom, knowledge and understanding.

 

[dad]

You can buy his book for a penny (+ ship). Maybe you can find what your looking for in there.

Thanks. I wasn't looking for a reading assignment or a movie. A topic came up about the Exodus, and I had thought you made a claim. I need no convincing, I am a believer.

 

[dad]

I don't think I buy this. Do you believe the continents were separate at the time of creation, or after the flood?

No one asked me, but after the flood.

 

[loktai]

Because what makes stuff fuse now may not be what made stuff fuse in the former state.

A video that throws out the way chromosomes are, and then assumes that they always were so.

He is not posting. If you don't know, stop citing it.

The claims of fusion must be looked at to see whether a refutation is needed even. You seem to wish that we all just believe blindly.

I know what fusion means, and I know what it means in the context of the video. You just want to play word games, because you got squat, and I'm not playing ball.

People work on reasonable assumptions all the time. If you kick a ball at a wall 1 million times and the ball bounces back 1 million times, you would reasonably assume that the next time you kick a ball at a wall it is going to bounce back.

Yes occasionally there are anomalies, for example a vandal could come overnight and smear the wall with glue, so next time you don't get the expected result. However that would give you cause to investigate the event and find a way to explain what just happened. There would be evidence to look into.

Using the different state past for every single one of your arguments is just a cheap get out, as you have nothing to support it whatsoever, other than your own assertions.


You are not required to believe what is presented to you, that is the whole point of asking you to refute it. If you don't believe it, show us why you think it is not correct, and back up those reasons with evidence to support them.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

No, not so quick...The Bible says it...I BELIEVE IT...and that settles it. Remember without faith it is impossible to please God!

So how do you determine if your beliefs are correct or not? Do you believe everything you read?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Evidence for what?

Evidence that anything you've actually posted lines up with observable reality?

 

[Lethe]

Evidence for what?

Evidence that anything you've actually posted lines up with observable reality?

This is the part that bothers me the most: most theists don't care if they know how to determine if something is true.

And that, is why faith is not a virtue.

 

[dad]

I know what fusion means, and I know what it means in the context of the video. You just want to play word games, because you got squat, and I'm not playing ball.

That is not the brave way out. You ought to give an honest try at explaining what fusion is in a few words. Your whole cases about the OP rests on that.

People work on reasonable assumptions all the time.

You cannot piggyback your fantasy past on the coat tails of actual reason and current reality.

If you kick a ball at a wall 1 million times and the ball bounces back 1 million times, you would reasonably assume that the next time you kick a ball at a wall it is going to bounce back.

When Noah kicked the ball, did gravity and no other balancing forces exist, and did it exist precisely at the same strength? How in the world would you know???? Let's be clear the issue is NOT how a ball behaves when you kick it here. Time to be more grown up.

Yes occasionally there are anomalies, for example a vandal could come overnight and smear the wall with glue, so next time you don't get the expected result. However that would give you cause to investigate the event and find a way to explain what just happened. There would be evidence to look into.

Speculation. You are in essence claiming that a same state past had to exist, but perhaps with a few quirks. How in the world would you know??

Using the different state past for every single one of your arguments is just a cheap get out, as you have nothing to support it whatsoever, other than your own assertions.

When we talk of heaven, and the afterlife we would be using the spiritual in every conversation. When we talk of a different past before this world existed or the universe, we also would not be straitjacketed to present state rules alone. Likewise, when we are talking about the recorded different past, there is NO reason to limit our models and thoughts to current laws. THAT has been the fatal flaw in man's wisdom, and it is the clear mark of inspiration. Better than fingerprints. Distinctive and clear markings of direct Satanic inspiration and source.

Gen 3:Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

You are not required to believe what is presented to you, that is the whole point of asking you to refute it.

You are refusing to show what fusion is according to you. Therefore it is you that are asking us to believe that whatever it may be, it was the same in the past. I prefer to operate more from a position of knowledge.

If you don't believe it, show us why you think it is not correct, and back up those reasons with evidence to support them.

No problem. Show us what fusion is then, of the chromosomes in the OP. We can look at the actual forces and laws that cause it.

 

[dad]

So how do you determine if your beliefs are correct or not? Do you believe everything you read?

How do you determine what God is? The way man knows about God is by Scripture. The events recorded, the people, the prophesies, and etc.

 

[Lethe]

How do you determine what a hobbit is? The way man knows about hobbits is by Tolkien. The events recorded, the people, the prophesies, and etc.

I fixed that for you.

BTW, hobbit: in my chrome spell checker. Therefore it is true.

 

[loktai]

That is not the brave way out. You ought to give an honest try at explaining what fusion is in a few words. Your whole cases about the OP rests on that.
You cannot piggyback your fantasy past on the coat tails of actual reason and current reality.

When Noah kicked the ball, did gravity and no other balancing forces exist, and did it exist precisely at the same strength? How in the world would you know???? Let's be clear the issue is NOT how a ball behaves when you kick it here. Time to be more grown up.

Speculation. You are in essence claiming that a same state past had to exist, but perhaps with a few quirks. How in the world would you know??


When we talk of heaven, and the afterlife we would be using the spiritual in every conversation. When we talk of a different past before this world existed or the universe, we also would not be straitjacketed to present state rules alone. Likewise, when we are talking about the recorded different past, there is NO reason to limit our models and thoughts to current laws. THAT has been the fatal flaw in man's wisdom, and it is the clear mark of inspiration. Better than fingerprints. Distinctive and clear markings of direct Satanic inspiration and source.

Gen 3:Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

You are refusing to show what fusion is according to you. Therefore it is you that are asking us to believe that whatever it may be, it was the same in the past. I prefer to operate more from a position of knowledge.


No problem. Show us what fusion is then, of the chromosomes in the OP. We can look at the actual forces and laws that cause it.

Again you are playing word games. I used the ball as an example of how we make 'reasonable assumptions' about the world we observe. You then took that and added Noah to it for no apparent reason, and then have the audacity to tell me to grow up?!

It is not speculation that the state was the same in the past. It is a reasonable assumption. It is speculation that it may have been different in the past, because there is no evidence to support it!

If you go to a park you have never been to before, and see a tree you have never seen before. It is reasonable, based on what you have observed about trees before, to assume that it was a tree yesterday and not a cup of coffee. It is possible that it wasn't a tree yesterday, as you had no observed it prior to the current state it is in.

I have a good idea: Why don't you run some computer simulations where you create a small portion of the universe - say the milky way, along with the current laws of physics. Then you start altering the laws of physics and observe what happens to the solar system if you say increase or reduce the force of gravity, and then record the results.

You can then use these test results to see if changes to the laws of physics would result in a stable solar system or one that destroys itself.

If the solar system remains stable through a few million years of simulation (obvisouly not simulated in real time) then it would give you some solid ground to say - aha it might have been different in the past, look here is some proof.

Instead of just speculating yourself about a different state past, based on nothing, and then chastising people for making reasonable assumptions based on everything we have learned about physics in the last 6000 years.

Now you are wrong about my claims, completely. You say in essence I am claiming a same state had to exist. No I am not. I am saying that it is reasonable to assume that it was the same in the past, based on what we have observed, and learnt about the laws of physics. I am not stating it as a fact, or asserting that it HAD to be. Again you are twisting things to fit your deluded reality.



Moving on: In regardss to you still hounding me for my definition of what fusion is: Fine here it is. I think fusion is what happens when a goat jumps off a cliff, but is saved by superman at the last minute before he hits the ground.

Obvisouly based on my definition, that totally changes what is being said in the video, regardless of what we observe in the real world.

 

[dad]

Again you are playing word games. I used the ball as an example of how we make 'reasonable assumptions' about the world we observe.

We do not observe Noah or Adam nor the world that was though. Keep your ball stories where they belong.

It is not speculation that the state was the same in the past.

Yes, and nothing but.

It is a reasonable assumption.

Ha. Your idea of reasonable consists in believing in the unproven ungodly state past. I don't find that reasonable.

It is speculation that it may have been different in the past, because there is no evidence to support it!

There is all the ancient records man has. All evidence available supports a DSP. NONE supports a same state past. To call a same state past science is an offense to reason.

If you go to a park you have never been to before, and see a tree you have never seen before. It is reasonable, based on what you have observed about trees before, to assume that it was a tree yesterday and not a cup of coffee. It is possible that it wasn't a tree yesterday, as you had no observed it prior to the current state it is in.

It is reasonable to assume that the tree of life was quite different from trees in Central park. It is reasonable to assume the tree that the dove brought a leaf from to Noah grew in a week or so. Our trees don't do that now.

I have a good idea: Why don't you run some computer simulations where you create a small portion of the universe - say the milky way, along with the current laws of physics. Then you start altering the laws of physics and observe what happens to the solar system if you say increase or reduce the force of gravity, and then record the results.

False logic. All we see of the Milky way is right here! IN our earth spacetime. Notice we have not gone to the stars?

If the solar system remains stable through a few million years of simulation (obvisouly not simulated in real time) then it would give you some solid ground to say - aha it might have been different in the past, look here is some proof.

The simulation would use earth laws of the here and now only. GONG!

Instead of just speculating yourself about a different state past, based on nothing, and then chastising people for making reasonable assumptions based on everything we have learned about physics in the last 6000 years.

I do not speculate. I deduce based on all available evidence.

Now you are wrong about my claims, completely. You say in essence I am claiming a same state had to exist. No I am not. I am saying that it is reasonable to assume that it was the same in the past, based on what we have observed, and learnt about the laws of physics. I am not stating it as a fact, or asserting that it HAD to be. Again you are twisting things to fit your deluded reality.

Excellent, so you hedge your bets and etch out a position that allows a DSP! I'll take that.

Moving on: In regardss to you still hounding me for my definition of what fusion is: Fine here it is. I think fusion is what happens when a goat jumps off a cliff, but is saved by superman at the last minute before he hits the ground.

So the goat fuses with the man rather than the ground. I see. Sorry, your video is looking worse each post.

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

I do not speculate. I deduce based on all available evidence.

Always the kidder!

 

[dad]

Always the kidder!

I kid you not.

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

I kid you not.

You have and you did. LOL.

 

[dad]

You have and you did. LOL.

No.

I happened upon a radio show lately where someone was discussing science.
In math apparently they needed to use an 'imaginary' number to make things work. That helped bring math into line and able to work for geometry, it was said. Later, they did something similar for dark matter. Predictions kept changing for the claimed early universe temperature. They used dark matter to get it to a certain point, and were excited to find that this point coincided with the measurements of C.O.B.E.

I would think this all bears some looking at in detail. What we seem to have is imaginary dark stuff (we could call it spiritual influence, or etc etc...whatever you want to call an unknown) being used to represent an earth state and it's matter and laws, being used to color the cosmos, by simply factoring it in the equations!? Anyone know more about this?

It seems to be a gaping hole in the armor of science. There is fun to be had.

 

[And-U-Say]

No.

I happened upon a radio show lately where someone was discussing science.
In math apparently they needed to use an 'imaginary' number to make things work. That helped bring math into line and able to work for geometry, it was said. Later, they did something similar for dark matter. Predictions kept changing for the claimed early universe temperature. They used dark matter to get it to a certain point, and were excited to find that this point coincided with the measurements of C.O.B.E.

I would think this all bears some looking at in detail. What we seem to have is imaginary dark stuff (we could call it spiritual influence, or etc etc...whatever you want to call an unknown) being used to represent an earth state and it's matter and laws, being used to color the cosmos, by simply factoring it in the equations!? Anyone know more about this?

It seems to be a gaping hole in the armor of science. There is fun to be had.

I would call it a gaping hole in your understanding. There is fun to be had, but at your expense, unfortunately.

There is no relationship of Dark Matter to imaginary numbers. And imaginary number, they actually work, so there is always that.

 

[dad]

I would call it a gaping hole in your understanding. There is fun to be had, but at your expense, unfortunately.

There is no relationship of Dark Matter to imaginary numbers. And imaginary number, they actually work, so there is always that.

The relationship was to geometry not to dark stuff. The dark stuff also was used like the imaginary number, in the calculations of heat and etc in cosmology. Of course it works...but what does the unknown imaginary stuff really represent that works!!! Something works, and works in a way that is in a pattern that we can use math on! Whoopee do.

 

[Belk]

The relationship was to geometry not to dark stuff. The dark stuff also was used like the imaginary number, in the calculations of heat and etc in cosmology. Of course it works...but what does the unknown imaginary stuff really represent that works!!! Something works, and works in a way that is in a pattern that we can use math on! Whoopee do.

Funny, I would of thought you would be all about making up things that only exist in the imagination. Seems to be your stock in trade.