Impreccable proof for the Biblical Flood

[Research1]

But it has.

No it hasn't.

And the rest of your post confuses speciation or minor variation with macroevolution.

Why are all evolutionists so dishonest?

 

[Hespera]

Yet its you guys who thought up punctuated equilibrium...

Im not a guy, i didnt think it up, and the idea of punctuated equilibrium has nothing to do with "suddenly", so fail on all counts.

 

[Exial]

You mean like evolutionists who believe fish suddenly morphed one day into land walking creatures? When has that ever been observed? Its pure superstition.

Your credibility when talking about evolution has been destroyed. This quote shows you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Please leave before you infect us with your stupidity and ignorance.

 

[Hespera]

We have observed mountains shrink, and things like hills form within recorded history.

Macroevolution however has never been observed or tested. Its not empirical science. This is something sadly the evolutionists will never accept...we keep going round in circles.

This is a really odd thing for you to say. In an earlier post you talk about peope (reluctantly?) "admitting" that long term / large scale changes cannot be observed in a human lifetime. Now you say "will never accept".

Now, here to show you are wrong, I accept it here and now: we cannot observe "macroevolution" (depending a bit how its defined).

Back to erosion, and mountains.

We observe that the rocky mountains erode away, a little at a time; you can see the silt laden rivers, you can observe landslides.

Do you reject "macroerosion" because nobody has ever seen a mountain wash to the sea?

Do you think there is a 'this far but no further" limit of some sort on "microerosion" or "microevolution" so that no large scale change can take place?

I'd appreciate a thoughtful answer.

 

[Hespera]

No it hasn't.

And the rest of your post confuses speciation or minor variation with macroevolution.

Why are all evolutionists so dishonest?

i think it would be better for the tone of conversation if you would refrain from insults and name calling.

 

[Matthijs]

No it hasn't.

And the rest of your post confuses speciation or minor variation with macroevolution.

Why are all evolutionists so dishonest?

I did not see or mean it as dishonesty - you asked for speciation, and I supplied it - I did not realize that what you wanted to see is something a bit more dramatic than that.

You say (at least I think it was you?) that we observed mountains form. This is not strictly true. We have seen mountains grow - ie change slowly over time. We have inferred that this in time has created the mountain. No-one has observed a mountain-range coming into existence - it takes too long. Same with the hills you mentioned - we observe the slow, slow working of a glacier, and infer that this is where erratic boulders and drumlins come from. No-one has ever observed boulders being picked up during a cold period of earths history and deposited miles away from a mountain. No-one has ever observed an expanding glacier pushing dirt into a hill of relatively soft material that quickly erodes into one of those nice rounded hills that England is so famous for.

Does this mean you don't believe in geology either?

 

[Hespera]

Your credibility when talking about evolution has been destroyed. This quote shows you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Please leave before you infect us with your stupidity and ignorance.

Now while it is true that he clearly does not know anything on the subject, I'd like to make a good faith effort to try to inform him.

I just requested that he refrain from name calling and insults, please you go forth and do likewise.

 

[AV1611VET]

And this would be another example of your infallible bible stating complete bollocks.

You did good, up to the last three words.

It's an excellent example of 'my' infallible Bible pwning evolution.

Like I like to say, I think God may have jumbled the order on purpose, so that creation would stand out in severe contradistinction to evolution -- since He knew beforehand that evolution would be the primary philosophy in the end times.

And for you opinion censors:


[sign]In my opinion![/sign]​

 

[chris4243]

So? Most people of all sorts are ill educated and superstitious.

You mean like evolutionists who believe fish suddenly morphed one day into land walking creatures? When has that ever been observed? Its pure superstition.

Yes, anyone who believes that is totally uneducated and believes in magical processes. The same goes for anyone who thinks educated people think that. While there are some retards with blind faith in their misunderstanding of evolution, most people who think that people actually believe what you suggested are victims of malicious liars creating a strawman for their uneducated followers to laugh at.

 

[Tomatoman]

You did good, up to the last three words.

It's an excellent example of 'my' infallible Bible pwning evolution.

Like I like to say, I think God may have jumbled the order on purpose, so that creation would stand out in severe contradistinction to evolution -- since He knew beforehand that evolution would be the primary philosophy in the end times.

And for you opinion censors:


[sign]In my opinion![/sign]​

You remember how we discussed the problems you have with recognising the reasons for you writing nonsense? The above is a case in point. If you didn't have such a rigid, unbending and totally crippling view of the bible you wouldn't have to write such complete rubbish as you have done above. Your cult is making a fool out of you.

 

[Research1]

I accept it here and now: we cannot observe "macroevolution" (depending a bit how its defined).

So since you admit macro is not observable or testable, its not science is it? If you change the definition of science to what is non-observable, then i guess you believe pixies and ghosts pass the requirements for the scientific method?

 

[chris4243]

Yet its you guys who thought up punctuated equilibrium...

Perhaps you should know something about the things you claim knowledge about before making a fool and liar of yourself. Wikipedia is usually a good source for such basic knowledge.

"I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him." -- Abraham Lincoln

 

[chris4243]

No it hasn't.

And the rest of your post confuses speciation or minor variation with macroevolution.

Why are all evolutionists so dishonest?

There really isn't a difference -- it is but a matter of scale. Frequently macroevolution is defined as being changes of such magnitude that they would take millions of years to happen, and then by definition we would be unable to observe them (since human history is too short a time for such observation).

Compare to the term "macroerosion". We see "microerosion" all the time but never "macroerosion". Do we conclude that erosion must therefore stop at the limit of the greatest amount of erosion which we have observed?

 

[AV1611VET]

You remember how we discussed the problems you have with recognising the reasons for you writing nonsense?

I'm the one with a recognition problem here?

The above is a case in point. If you didn't have such a rigid, unbending and totally crippling view of the bible you wouldn't have to write such complete rubbish as you have done above.

Why don't you fix it then? just let me know what basic doctrine teaches, and I'll check into it.

Your cult is making a fool out of you.

What are you talking about? my 'cult' led me to Jesus Christ, Who saved me from a life of atheism.

 

[Split Rock]

You did good, up to the last three words.

It's an excellent example of 'my' infallible Bible pwning evolution.

Like I like to say, I think God may have jumbled the order on purpose, so that creation would stand out in severe contradistinction to evolution -- since He knew beforehand that evolution would be the primary philosophy in the end times.

And for you opinion censors:


[sign]In my opinion![/sign]​

Problem is, everything from "Basic Theology" down to "In my opinion" is all just an opinion. How you "pwn" anyone or "settle" any argument with nothing but your opinion is beyond me.

 

[Split Rock]

Why don't you fix it then? just let me know what basic doctrine teaches, and I'll check into it.

Which "basic theology" are you referring to. One church's "basic theology" is another's blasphemy.

What are you talking about? my 'cult' led me to Jesus Christ, Who saved me from a life of atheism.

Look where that has now led you. Do you really think God wants you to deny reality?

 

[AV1611VET]

So since you admit macro is not observable or testable, its not science is it?

My friend, you're talking about science here -- a philosophy that has five different theories as to how we got our moon, and not one of them has ever, nor can be, observed.

Don't think that, just because they can't directly observe something, they are going to let that stop them.

All they need to see is a shadow of something -- (or five shadows) -- and then look out, anyone daring to disagree with their shadows is uneducated at best, and a liar at worst.

Internet scientists usually go for the latter first -- we're automatically a liar, until proven uneducated.

 

[Tomatoman]

I'm the one with a recognition problem here?

Yes. We've established this is a problem for you.

Why don't you fix it then? just let me know what basic doctrine teaches, and I'll check into it.

Further proof of the depths of the problem.

What are you talking about? my 'cult' led me to Jesus Christ, Who saved me from a life of atheism.

Being a christian doesn't require you to be brainwashed by a hardcore baptist cult. Good god, even your other baptists can't agree on what the bible says. At the last count there were 138 different baptist sects all disagreeing about something or other. But obviously yours is the right one. Wake up, AV. You're living in a dream. Even if you are blind to the brainwashing, even you must recognise that the stuff you have to post on here as a result of it is plain embarrassing.

 

[Research1]

There really isn't a difference -- it is but a matter of scale. Frequently macroevolution is defined as being changes of such magnitude that they would take millions of years to happen, and then by definition we would be unable to observe them (since human history is too short a time for such observation).

Compare to the term "macroerosion". We see "microerosion" all the time but never "macroerosion". Do we conclude that erosion must therefore stop at the limit of the greatest amount of erosion which we have observed?

Yet there is no evidence macro is just micro on a greater time scale. Evolutionists have faith that it is, but can't prove it scientifically. We only observe minor variations and mutations, not things 'evolving'...dogs remain dogs, fish remain fish etc. Evolutionists however believe dogs sprung from non-dogs and fish from non-fish. Theres the fairytale.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps you should know something about the things you claim knowledge about before making a fool and liar of yourself.

LOL -- QED my last post, Research.