Madagascar and Australia, a question for creationists.

[Colter]

Which claim is easier to accept?

Miller's or mine?

Yours is a fictional story created by priestly politicians which became scripture. Having lost their nationalist pride the Israelites went to the other extreme in revamping their history.

Miller is someone making one of many points about how rediculous the flood story is.

I'm not mocking your faith in God, I'm just explaining that you would be more effective if you give up some old ideas. It's time to become an adult in Christ and put away childish things.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's it, if you can't answer the questions throw verses at them.

What are you talking about?

You mentioned human sacrifice.

I showed God on the cross.

Care to explain how God got on the cross and why you're equating that with human sacrifice?

You said the Aztecs have me beat.

Care to show me Quetzacoatl sacrificing his own son? a son who volunteered to be the savior of mankind?

And please ... by all means ... feel free to "throw their verses at me."

Just don't make something up.

 

[HitchSlap]

Matthew 27:40b If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.

Mark 2:7b who can forgive sins but God only?

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

C'mon, it's like you're quoting the bible to verify the bible... wait. wut?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yours is a fictional story created by priestly politicians which became scripture. Having lost their nationalist pride the Israelites went to the other extreme in revamping their history.

Miller is someone making one of many points about how rediculous the flood story is.

I'm not mocking your faith in God, I'm just explaining that you would be more effective if you give up some old ideas. It's time to become an adult in Christ and put away childish things.

I don't need three paragraphs, Colter.

Do you mind answering my question?

 

[HitchSlap]

What are you talking about?

You mentioned human sacrifice.

I showed God on the cross.

Care to explain how God got on the cross and why you're equating that with human sacrifice?

You said the Aztecs have me beat.

Care to show me Quetzacoatl sacrificing his own son? a son who volunteered to be the savior of mankind?

And please ... by all means ... feel free to "throw their verses at me."

Just don't make something up.

Was his son over it in 72 hours, too?

 

[AV1611VET]

C'mon, it's like you're quoting the bible to verify the bible... wait. wut?

Ya ... imagine that!?

Sixty-six books that validate each other!

That's more books than the Encyclopedia Britannica, which validate each other.

If you're saying the Bible is circular logic, then what's the Encyclopedia Britannica?

 

[AV1611VET]

Was his son over it in 72 hours, too?

Does it matter to the point you made?

Suppose He never came back and is still in the grave?

Justify your error please.

 

[pat34lee]

And one such result is...?

From the article I listed:

"Penn State researchers at the Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences uncover a long-standing, fundamental error in the story of the nervous system’s evolution.

A component of vertebrate neurons - known as the axon initial segment (AIS) - that is responsible for regulating the nerve cell’s output has long been thought by scientists to have evolved relatively recently, and specifically in vertebrates, in order to enable rapid, precise signaling in the complex circuitry of the vertebrate nervous system.

But a discovery made by the labs of Penn State researchers Melissa Rolls and Tim Jegla is bringing about a rewriting of a fundamental aspect of that story."

Another
" Since the early 1900s, we've known that the Y chromosome is responsible for making males—XX embryos develop into girls and XY embryos develop into boys—but the Y was thought to do little else. After all, at just one quarter the length of the X chromosome, the Y is relatively puny. Biologists hypothesized that the few genes it does carry contribute to processes like sperm production and testes development by helping turn on and off other genes. In fact, the Y had such a bad rap that many researchers suggested that it was on its way to evolutionary extinction. However, now, new research suggests that the Y chromosome is here to stay. Its function goes far beyond triggering maleness..."
Why the Y is here to stay

Also vestigial organs which are quite important, and 'junk' DNA which is all used and is anything but junk.

 

[HitchSlap]

Does it matter to the point you made?

Suppose He never came back and is still in the grave?

Justify your error please.

I thought you'd have a sound argument for human sacrifice... but alas, my error.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

From the article I listed:

"Penn State researchers at the Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences uncover a long-standing, fundamental error in the story of the nervous system’s evolution.

A component of vertebrate neurons - known as the axon initial segment (AIS) - that is responsible for regulating the nerve cell’s output has long been thought by scientists to have evolved relatively recently, and specifically in vertebrates, in order to enable rapid, precise signaling in the complex circuitry of the vertebrate nervous system.

But a discovery made by the labs of Penn State researchers Melissa Rolls and Tim Jegla is bringing about a rewriting of a fundamental aspect of that story."

Another
" Since the early 1900s, we've known that the Y chromosome is responsible for making males—XX embryos develop into girls and XY embryos develop into boys—but the Y was thought to do little else. After all, at just one quarter the length of the X chromosome, the Y is relatively puny. Biologists hypothesized that the few genes it does carry contribute to processes like sperm production and testes development by helping turn on and off other genes. In fact, the Y had such a bad rap that many researchers suggested that it was on its way to evolutionary extinction. However, now, new research suggests that the Y chromosome is here to stay. Its function goes far beyond triggering maleness..."
Why the Y is here to stay

Also vestigial organs which are quite important, and 'junk' DNA which is all used and is anything but junk.

But how exactly has that held back progress?
And all you have done is shown that scientists can adapt their theories to fit new information. Nothing more.

 

[pat34lee]

But you can bet your bottom dollar that no one would deny gravity by stepping off the Empire State Building lolzz

The one they all go for. If you don't believe in evolution, why believe in gravity?
Maybe because we can test one and the other is a matter of faith? And faith in what?
Time and chance, in place of God.

 

[pat34lee]

kangaroos

What are the requirements for fossilization and how often do they occur?
So what is the chance of finding one?

 

[JD16]

The one they all go for. If you don't believe in evolution, why believe in gravity?
Maybe because we can test one and the other is a matter of faith? And faith in what?
Time and chance, in place of God.

Are you saying that to understand(not believe) evolution requires faith?And since gravity can be tested thats why you believe in it,...then why accept religion on faith? since you can't test it?

 

[HitchSlap]

The one they all go for. If you don't believe in evolution, why believe in gravity?
Maybe because we can test one and the other is a matter of faith? And faith in what?
Time and chance, in place of God.

What makes you think we can't test for evolution? Do you really tens of thousands of biologists the world over go into work everyday, close the door, sit behind their desk and play CoD, just so's we can fools the creotists?

lol

 

[HitchSlap]

The one they all go for. If you don't believe in evolution, why believe in gravity?
Maybe because we can test one and the other is a matter of faith? And faith in what?
Time and chance, in place of God.

You could start here: The Formation of Fossils

But then again, Dunning-Kruger is strong with you, and you'll prolly just think they dreamed this up.

 

[pitabread]

Maybe because we can test one and the other is a matter of faith?

Like I said, modern evolutionary biology is an applied science. No faith required.

This is something that creationists refuse to accept, but it's a basic fact.

 

[AV1611VET]

I thought you'd have a sound argument for human sacrifice... but alas, my error.

I'm glad I disappointed you.

 

[pat34lee]

But how exactly has that held back progress?
And all you have done is shown that scientists can adapt their theories to fit new information. Nothing more.

No, it means it took 50 years for them to discover the basics because they didn't bother looking. It didn't fit the theories.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, it means it took 50 years for them to discover the basics because they didn't bother looking. It didn't fit the theories.

How do you know they didn't bother looking? Fifty years ago, scientists weren't able to actually fully look at the neurons in the human body or how they evolved. It's not a case of they didn't want to look, it's that they COULDN'T.
You're just tilting at windmills here and it really makes you come across as someone just wanting to argue for arguments sake.

 

[JD16]

No, it means it took 50 years for them to discover the basics because they didn't bother looking. It didn't fit the theories.

It took you guys 2k years and you're still stuck in that era, for exactly the same reasons, it didn't fit your dogma/ideologies ....what are you complaining about?