Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[AV1611VET]

So "rich" it needs to pay off its 2nd hand TV in installments. Yes.
Your point being?

My point being that, when I see you willing to give Canada back to its indigenous natives, I'll [briefly] consider how serious you are about Israel giving its promised land back to their space invaders.

 

[Mr Laurier]

My point being that, when I see you willing to give Canada back to its indigenous natives, I'll [briefly] consider how serious you are about Israel giving its promised land back to their space invaders.

I would LOVE to see the white man pack up and go home.
Nothing could please me more. Please do go home.
Your bigoted slurs at the native Palestinian people, calling them "space invaders", as though they were targets in a game, where you get points for "blasting" them... tells me that you would be just as willing to kill me if I resisted white rule. And just as indifferent to my death.
The white man promises our land to himself. And he takes it.
Here in Canada, we were "given" patches of dirt. So-called "reservations". Where we were at least allowed to live relatively unmolested.
I have yet to see the white settlers in Palestine offer that small concession to the natives there.

 

[AV1611VET]

I would LOVE to see the white man pack up and go home.

What white man? here? Canada? or both?

I'm not sure which ones you're referring to.

 

[Mr Laurier]

What white man? here? Canada? or both?

I'm not sure which ones you're referring to.

All.
Oh... wait. You thought I was a white person, didn't you.
You thought I would rush to defend the oppression of the natives in Canada.
You forgot all the times I mentioned that I am Metis. And you presumed that I would rally to the "white race".
Let me help you AV.

You may reasonably deduce from this video, that I dont buy into the concept of human "races".

 

[AV1611VET]

You may reasonably deduce from this video, that I dont buy into the concept of human "races".

Okay ... I watched the first 2 minutes of this.

Your attempts to make this issue with the Abrahamic Covenant (Israel being in her "promised land") a racial thing with the Palestinians [sic] is not cutting it with me, Dan.

There is one race on the earth: the human race.

Or, as the Bible calls us: mankind.

This means that, whether it was the Mongoloids, Negroids, or Caucasoids that are demanding Israel's land for peace ... it doesn't matter.

The aforementioned Halloween Monster didn't care.

 

[Speedwell]

Your attempts to make this issue with the Abrahamic Covenant (Israel being in her "promised land") a racial thing with the Palestinians [sic] is not cutting it with me, Dan.

I agree--it's not racial, it's strictly political.

 

[disciple Clint]

So you agree there are substantial reasons to
doubt it's authenticity.

No, I would not say that. I would say that there a conflicting opinions about it, conflicting opinions should be expected in anything relating to Theology. The same thing can be said for many things related to science.

 

[disciple Clint]

You may have noticed that Jewish scholars are still Jews, And are not converting in droves... or indeed at all.

in other words you are expressing your opinion and you are not prepared to establish it as being fact.

 

[Astrophile]

All the evidence that is presented is micro evolution, which is merely variations within a species - any evolution that leaves a finch still a finch, a bacterium still bacteria, a moth still a moth, doesn’t demonstrate that life forms can undergo the quantum leap in genetic information needed to morph into a new and higher animal.

Do you know that 'there are thought to be approximately 160,000 species of moths' - Moth - Wikipedia - whereas there are fewer than 500 species of living primates - Primate - Wikipedia - and only around 6,400 described extant species of mammals - Mammal - Wikipedia .

If you think that the evolution of the ~160,000 species of moths is micro-evolution, why don't you think that the evolution of the <500 species of primates or the ~6400 species of mammals is also micro-evolution?

 

[AV1611VET]

Dan, I have now watched your video in its entirety.

I'd like to clarify again that my issues are not race-related at all.

My issues here are with anti-Biblical science: science that does not comport to a literal translation of the Bible.

You can call me "antiscience" or a "science hater" or whatever else you can think of; but to do so, you have to deny my heuristics:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

When people scoff at my directives, which they would have to do, then I don't really take their accusations against me seriously.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dan, I have now watched your video in its entirety.

I'd like to clarify again that my issues are not race-related at all.

My issues here are with anti-Biblical science: science that does not comport to a literal translation of the Bible.

You can call me "antiscience" or a "science hater" or whatever else you can think of; but to do so, you have to deny my heuristics:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

When people scoff at my directives, which they would have to do, then I don't really take their accusations against me seriously.

So the Earth is flat then.

 

[Frank Robert]

Micro evolution is obviously lateral evolution, and macro evolution is vertical evolution, meaning a lower animal changing into a higher animal.

All the evidence that is presented is micro evolution, which is merely variations within a species - any evolution that leaves a finch still a finch, a bacterium still bacteria, a moth still a moth, doesn’t demonstrate that life forms can undergo the quantum leap in genetic information needed to morph into a new and higher animal.

Yet they extrapolate macro from micro evolution as if it’s proven fact.

You are partially correct. Evolution is not proven fact, the ToE (micro and macro) is supported by by a convergence of evidence from genetics, molecular biology, paleontology, geology, biogeography, comparative anatomy, comparative physiology, and many other fields.

Your description of microevolution and macroevolution are incorrect.

"Microevolution versus macroevolution" is in many ways a false dichotomy, and it is often invoked by opponents of the theory
of evolution to suggest that the former may be true while the latter is false. Both, in fact, are types of evolution.

To propose that microevolution is possible but macroevolution is not is rather like saying that one can drive from Maine to
New York, and from New York to Ohio, and so on in small steps all the way to California, but that driving all the way across the
United States is impossible.

Both happen through the same overall processes of natural selection, mutation, migration, genetic drift and so on.
Microevolutionary changes that accumulate, sometimes but not always over long periods, can and do produce major
evolutionary changes.

Differences: The main difference between microevolution and macroevolution is simply the time scales over which
they occur. Microevolution happens over short periods of time, while macroevolution is more gradual, adding up many
instances of microevolution over time.​

 

[AV1611VET]

So the Earth is flat then.

No.

Knowing the difference between literal and poetic is what constitutes Biblical maturity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No.

Knowing the difference between literal and poetic is what constitutes Biblical maturity.

The same can be said about the stories of Genesis. Perhaps you should try to understand how we know that they did not happen.

 

[AV1611VET]

The same can be said about the stories of Genesis.

Indeed it can -- but Genesis has very little poetry in it -- very little.

To find poetry, one would have to go outside of the book of Genesis, namely to the five books of poetry, to do so.

Perhaps you should try to understand how we know that they did not happen.

I like to think that I do know how you know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Indeed it can -- but Genesis has very little poetry in it -- very little.

To find poetry, one would have to go outside of the book of Genesis, namely to the five books of poetry, to do so.I like to think that I do know how you know.

Why put extra importance on poetry? It fits the form of a morality tale.

And no, you simply do not know. You cannot afford to understand.

 

[chad kincham]

Who says DNA/RNA had to come first?:
Origins of life? Discovery could help explain how first organisms emerged on Earth:

.. conclusion:

I stand by my statement of fact: no abiogenesis experiments or research is even remotely close to making the simplest living cell, and all the research into DNA, then when that was a dead end, the RNA world, and when that failed, RNA precursors, has, or will, produced any living cell, under perfect and controlled laboratory conditions, let alone prebiotic conditions.

Endless and tenuous speculation, exaggeration, and hyperbole is all they have, to keep that research funding money coming in, and fake out the lay public.

Professor of synthetic and organic chemistry, James Tour, exposes the actual facts:

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do you know that 'there are thought to be approximately 160,000 species of moths' - Moth - Wikipedia - whereas there are fewer than 500 species of living primates - Primate - Wikipedia - and only around 6,400 described extant species of mammals - Mammal - Wikipedia .

Sounds like the moths have been busy speciating. We mammals aren't keeping up! I nominate the rodentia to pick up the slack.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I stand by my statement of fact: no abiogenesis experiments or research is even remotely close to making the simplest living cell, and all the research into DNA, then when that was a dead end, the RNA world, and when that failed, RNA precursors, has, or will, produced any living cell, under perfect and controlled laboratory conditions, let alone prebiotic conditions.

Endless and tenuous speculation, exaggeration, and hyperbole is all they have, to keep that research funding money coming in, and fake out the lay public.

Professor of synthetic and organic chemistry, James Tour, exposes the actual facts:

The problem is that Tour gets so much wrong, as shown in this video here:

By the way, if he is an "expert" as he claims, then why can't he write a proper peer reviewed article on the topic?

 

[chad kincham]

Scientists create simple synthetic cell that grows and divides normally:
.. more work done since then:

Still very laughable and irrelevant, and a perfect example of the baloney foisted upon the public.

They created no living cell. The took a living cell with its membrane and endless related components that no one can make, and without which a cell couldn’t exist, and replaced the biological programming code that is the operating system for the cell, and wrote a segment of DNA which they inserted into the cell.

That’s like me learning to write computer programming language, and replacing Windows 10 with a different operating system, then bragging I created a computer.

I couldn’t possibly make a mid tower case, power supply, motherboard, hard drive, sound card, video card, etc, of my own from scratch - and they can’t even come close to producing a living cell, they merely hijacked a living cell and reprogrammed a segment of DNA code.

Once again, Professor James Tour explains in detail how complex the simplest cell is, and why no one can build one from scratch.