Evolution Exposed

[AV1611VET]

And that's where the agreement stops.

It may stop there, but it exposes a very potent fact:

People aren't going to care if we agree or don't agree.

And trying to use disagreement as some kind of point against our beliefs is a sterile attempt at discrediting our testimonies.

 

[The Cadet]

Is responding with pointless one-liners in this thread sort of a post count inflation thing?

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is myopic, the faith you propose is willfully blind.

You call this:[VERSE=2 Kings 6:17,KJV]And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.[/VERSE]... 'willfully blind'?

As I have said before:

Scientists can delete all the information in this solar system from thier propaganda, and we would still believe there's much more to this solar system than meets the eye.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is responding with pointless one-liners in this thread sort of a post count inflation thing?

If it is ... did you just make a contribution?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

QV please: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/look-what-i-found.7341927/

You an awful penchant for responding to posts with irrelevant material.

 

[AV1611VET]

You an awful penchant for responding to posts with irrelevant material.

-- Flattery will get you nowhere.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

-- Flattery will get you nowhere.

Flattery - you can count on it.

 

[JacksBratt]

I'd rather trust thousands of qualified scientists than someone who makes plausible sounding statements but not in an open debate with a scientist. He's preaching to the converted. Where the hell did the creator come from? Just because we don't fully understand the natural world doesn't mean we retreat to superstition.

Thanks, I really had to chuckle at your post.....

"where did the creator come from?"

Really? This coming from a follower of the TOE religion, that doesn't even try to explain where life came from?

I dunknow,,,, I call double standard.

In the end Creationists have to "explain" where God came from but Evolutionists have to explain where "everything" came from.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

You were there?

No, but God was and He told us about it in Genesis.

 

[JacksBratt]

Exactly. Everything in science (understanding of reality) is provisional. As better evidence comes in and our understanding of theories improve, and thus science advances. It's a hallmark of the SM!

Science used to be controlled by peer reviews, data and repeatability.

Check this out:

The Failure of Peer Review
Publisher Biomed Central has been forced to retract a large number of papers due to abuses of the "peer review" system. From the Washington Post: Major Publisher Retracts 43 Scientific Papers Amid Wider Fake Peer Review Scandal The system of "peer review" is supposed to ensure the quality of scientific papers. In fact the system rejects unconventional theories while allowing papers that are mediocre or completely false. Many, many more scientific papers are published full of questionable research. This scandal is barely the tip of an iceberg. Scientific research has become broken.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Thanks, I really had to chuckle at your post.....

"where did the creator come from?"

Really? This coming from a follower of the TOE religion, that doesn't even try to explain where life came from?

I dunknow,,,, I call double standard.

In the end Creationists have to "explain" where God came from but Evolutionists have to explain where "everything" came from.

WE don't have to explain where the creator came from. Only things that had a beginning need a creator. God clearly tells us that He is eternal. Either the universe has to be eternal or something outside the universe has to be. Since scientists have already proven that the universe had a beginning, then the eternal force outside of time and space has to be (what Christian's believe to be Jesus the creator God as described in John Chapter 1).

 

[AV1611VET]

Flattery - you can count on it.

 

[The Cadet]

No, but God was and He told us about it in Genesis.

Did I tell about the dragon in my backyard? Why can we trust your "God" character? Even assuming he did write the book of Genesis, the story of Noah's Ark shows that it was either allegory or a lie.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did I tell about the dragon in my backyard?

Did Mr. Sagan leave his garage door open?

 

[Goonie]

WE don't have to explain where the creator came from. Only things that had a beginning need a creator. God clearly tells us that He is eternal. Either the universe has to be eternal or something outside the universe has to be. Since scientists have already proven that the universe had a beginning, then the eternal force outside of time and space has to be (what Christian's believe to be Jesus the creator God as described in John Chapter 1).

Iron age man tells you hes eternal, god is strangely silent on the subject.

 

[Loudmouth]

Now your just denying

Denying what? What evidence I am ignoring?

 

[Loudmouth]

Thanks, I really had to chuckle at your post.....

"where did the creator come from?"

Really? This coming from a follower of the TOE religion, that doesn't even try to explain where life came from?

I dunknow,,,, I call double standard.

In the end Creationists have to "explain" where God came from but Evolutionists have to explain where "everything" came from.

Don't you have the same double standard?

 

[Loudmouth]

Science used to be controlled by peer reviews, data and repeatability.

Check this out:

The Failure of Peer Review
Publisher Biomed Central has been forced to retract a large number of papers due to abuses of the "peer review" system. From the Washington Post: Major Publisher Retracts 43 Scientific Papers Amid Wider Fake Peer Review Scandal The system of "peer review" is supposed to ensure the quality of scientific papers. In fact the system rejects unconventional theories while allowing papers that are mediocre or completely false. Many, many more scientific papers are published full of questionable research. This scandal is barely the tip of an iceberg. Scientific research has become broken.

It only shows that science is trustworthy because it can root out fraud, unlike religion where everything is dogmatic and taken on faith.

 

[Goonie]

It only shows that science is trustworthy because it can root out fraud, unlike religion where everything is dogmatic and taken on faith.

agreed, whenever you have stories like this it is the scientists who are responsible spotting the problem and addressing it.

 

[HitchSlap]

Science used to be controlled by peer reviews, data and repeatability.

Check this out:

The Failure of Peer Review
Publisher Biomed Central has been forced to retract a large number of papers due to abuses of the "peer review" system. From the Washington Post: Major Publisher Retracts 43 Scientific Papers Amid Wider Fake Peer Review Scandal The system of "peer review" is supposed to ensure the quality of scientific papers. In fact the system rejects unconventional theories while allowing papers that are mediocre or completely false. Many, many more scientific papers are published full of questionable research. This scandal is barely the tip of an iceberg. Scientific research has become broken.

Peer review process still works better than prayer.