Man and dinosaur coexisting

[Loudmouth]

That's what I answered....... literally.

No you didn't. You referred to Genesis. I am referring to the world outside of the Bible. Do you interpret the universe literally or figuratively? Are distant stars just make believe?

 

[Loudmouth]

Abiogenisis is impossible. Therefore it is not part of any theory.

Then why do we see all of these creationists insisting that abiogenesis is a part of evolution?

Evolution needs "something" to get this whole thing rolling.

So does germ theory.

Evolution is "don't ask me about how organism #1 came to be but after that I'm full of stories, enigmas, exaggerations, suppositions and extrapolations as to what happened from then on. Just don't ask me to go one more step backward as that doesn't concern us.

Isn't germ theory doing the same thing? It deals with bacteria #2, but never asks where bacteria #1 came from?

Bacteria don't have to come out of thin air to cause disease.

Life doesn't have to come out of thin air in order to evolve.

 

[JacksBratt]

Perfect example:
"It is only those who feel or think that they are so smart that God's way is to simple and obvious or what ever and will not take the Bible literally. They are far to educated and intelligent to come to the truth of the gospel like a child does to what their parents teach them."--JacksBratt

So, I'm arrogant to state that people who believe they are too smart, educated and intelligent, to believe Gods' word, as it is stated, are arrogant.
Wow, wrap your head around that would ja.

 

[Loudmouth]

So, I'm arrogant to state that people who believe they are too smart, educated and intelligent, to believe Gods' word, as it is stated, are arrogant.
Wow, wrap your head around that would ja.

You are saying that you are superior to people who have educations and knowledge. That is arrogance.

 

[JacksBratt]

No you didn't. You referred to Genesis. I am referring to the world outside of the Bible. Do you interpret the universe literally or figuratively? Are distant stars just make believe?

Are you suggestion we live in a matrix type reality.... I didn't take the red pill.
The stars are real, they exist. The universe is real... However, there are other dimensions that we cannot enter until death. This world, universe is our reality. Solid, tangible and real.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you suggestion we live in a matrix type reality.... I didn't take the red pill.

Apparently, you did:

"However, there are other dimensions that we cannot enter until death."

This world, universe is our reality. Solid, tangible and real.

So if we find evidence of evolution and an old Earth, then this means that evolution occurred and the Earth is old, right?

 

[JacksBratt]

You are saying that you are superior to people who have educations and knowledge. That is arrogance.

How am I superior?

 

[Loudmouth]

How am I superior?

You are implying that your ignorance of science and your penchant for ignoring facts makes you superior to those who study and understand these things.

 

[JacksBratt]

Then why do we see all of these creationists insisting that abiogenesis is a part of evolution?

Well, if God did not create life, where did it come from? Abiogenisis is the only other option, unless you have one.

So does germ theory.

From a creationists point of view, no. God created all things. If you are an evolutionist then all life requires a starting point other than a creator.

Isn't germ theory doing the same thing? It deals with bacteria #2, but never asks where bacteria #1 came from?

Bacteria one came from the same place cow #1, Pig #1, eagle #1, human #1 came from.

Life doesn't have to come out of thin air in order to evolve.

It has to start somewhere. I don't think thin air is a good answer myself.

 

[JacksBratt]

You are implying that your ignorance of science and your penchant for ignoring facts makes you superior to those who study and understand these things.

Actually, no. My simple belief in the truth of the Bible gives me the knowledge and solid foundation of an all knowing, all powerful and ever present superior being who lives outside and unaffected by the physical restrictions of this world.
It also, to answer or dismiss your view, gives me faith to believe that what ever man has arrogantly stated as fact and indisputable truth will crumble like a house of cards when all is revealed and the real truth rings loud and clear.
I am superior to no man in this regard. All are able to have the same gift of salvation that I have and have their eyes opened to the simple truth when they approach this new life like a child.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, if God did not create life, where did it come from?

If God did not create germs and the hosts that they infect, then where did they come from?

Isn't it just as much a part of germ theory as it is evolution?

If you are an evolutionist then all life requires a starting point other than a creator.

Then if you are a germist, like yourself, the all germs and hosts require a starting point other than a creator for the same reason, right?

Bacteria one came from the same place cow #1, Pig #1, eagle #1, human #1 came from.

So they came from abiogenesis?

It has to start somewhere. I don't think thin air is a good answer myself.

But thin air is where you think life came from. You think a deity spoke life into being, like "Abracadabra".

 

[JacksBratt]

If God did not create germs and the hosts that they infect, then where did they come from?

Exactly. Now your getting it.

Then if you are a germist, like yourself, the all germs and hosts require a starting point other than a creator for the same reason, right?

What's a germist and why do they not have the option of belief in a creator?

So they came from abiogenesis?

Ah, no. The creator.

But thin air is where you think life came from. You think a deity spoke life into being, like "Abracadabra".

He is so great He didn't need any magic word. He just said "let there be" and there "was"

I guess I should clarify. Out of thin air by a creator or just plain spontaneously out of thin air....different totally.
Remember before God spoke everything into existence, in this dimension, there was nothing.
Where does the hive mind think all the matter and mass came from in the first place? A singularity? Then where did the singularity come from?

 

[Loudmouth]

Exactly. Now your getting it.

So you believe that germs and the rest of life came about by abiogenesis?

What's a germist and why do they not have the option of belief in a creator?

A germist accepts the germ theory of disease. You are a germist. If an evolutionist is not allowed to believe that life was created by a deity, then neither do germists, and for the same reasons.

Ah, no. The creator.

As already shown, you are a germist. You are not allowed to have a deity creating life.

He is so great He didn't need any magic word. He just said "let there be" and there "was"

Then the magic word would be "let there be". You believe life just appeared out of thin air by magic.

I guess I should clarify. Out of thin air by a creator or just plain spontaneously out of thin air....different totally.
Remember before God spoke everything into existence, in this dimension, there was nothing.
Where does the hive mind think all the matter and mass came from in the first place? A singularity? Then where did the singularity come from?

Notice that you never showed how it was different.

 

[AV1611VET]

The real question is why you aren't arguing that we have to prove abiogenesis in order to conclude that bacteria cause infections.

Abiogenesis is a joke.

 

[Loudmouth]

Abiogenesis is a joke.

Thinking that evolution must incorporate abiogenesis is a joke.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thinking that evolution must incorporate abiogenesis is a joke.

Wait until the Antichrist does it effortlessly.

Scientists will line up to take the mark.

 

[USincognito]

Creationists are big fans of screeds and high dudgeon? Really? While evolutionists hold tight to Lucy and Piltdown man as well as Haekel’s embryos, Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis, Nebraska man, Shall I go on? Screeds and high dudgeon indeed.

Oh the irony! Not only is this reply and example of tu quoque, but the only people who drone on and on endlessly about Lucy, Plitdown, Haeckel, Archaeoraptor and Neabraska man are CREATIONISTS! Even then they can't get their facts straight.

Nebraska "man" was never considered by scientists to be anything other than an anthropoid ape (and one whose discovery would have actually been problematic for evolution). It is only in Creationist fever dreams that the Illustrated London News drawing was taken seriously.

Haeckel's drawings are not as off base, especially those done later in his work when he had better microscopes as Creationists would have us believe. His drawings were biased in favor of his recapitulation hypothesis, but they weren't the frauds that Creationists claim. This blog does a magnificent smack down on Creationist claims about Haeckel including catching ICR's Brian Thomas, MS in a fraud of his own.
http://pigeonchess.com/2012/07/26/creationist-foists-fraudulent-embryo-picture-on-his-readers/

And what about Lucy? Well, Creationists, based on the stupid Hovind inspired Chick Tract "Big Daddy" claim that she was a chimpanzee (when they don't ignorantly claim she was an outright fraud). They often cite Owen Lovejoy using a small cutting drill to fix her pelvis that was fossilized in an unnatural position as "proof" that she was just a chimp. To them I ask this:

 

[fargonic]

Wait until the Antichrist does it effortlessly.

That would be akin to the antichrist making 3=7. Evolution.does.not.include.abiogenesis.

There is a DIFFERENCE between DRIVING the car and MAKING the car. One needn't know how to make a car to drive it. And vice versa. They are unrelated topics.

Scientists will line up to take the mark.

Why do you think that? Do you have so little respect for scientists that you fantasize about them giving themselves over to Satan?

What a strange, strange thing to fantasize about. Why do you hate scientists so much? Many are believers in Christ and good Christians.

Who are you to judge them? Have you come to sit by the right hand of the Father to come to judge the quick and the dead?

 

[AV1611VET]

That would be akin to the antichrist making 3=7.

I'm gonna disagree here.

Evolution.does.not.include.abiogenesis.

Not.yet.

There is a DIFFERENCE between DRIVING the car and MAKING the car. One needn't know how to make a car to drive it. And vice versa. They are unrelated topics.

Neat!

Why do you think that?

Because there are two Antichrists coming: one a scientist and one a [false] prophet.

The scientist is going to demonstrate abiogenesis.

Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

Do you have so little respect for scientists that you fantasize about them giving themselves over to Satan?

No.

What a strange, strange thing to fantasize about.

Okay.

Why do you hate scientists so much?

I don't.

Many are believers in Christ and good Christians.

That is correct.

Who are you to judge them? Have you come to sit by the right hand of the Father to come to judge the quick and the dead?

You're forgetting that these "many believers in Christ and good Christian scientists" won't be here.

They will have been raptured.

I'd say that leaves the unbelieving scientists behind.

 

[JacksBratt]

And what about Lucy? Well, Creationists, based on the stupid Hovind inspired Chick Tract "Big Daddy" claim that she was a chimpanzee (when they don't ignorantly claim she was an outright fraud). They often cite Owen Lovejoy using a small cutting drill to fix her pelvis that was fossilized in an unnatural position as "proof" that she was just a chimp. To them I ask this:
View attachment 167450

Funny this:

Another icon of evolution, the world famous fossil “Lucy” was found to not be in the modern human lineage at all. The interesting part of this is that this is extremely newsworthy but because it casts a very unflattering light on so many scientists who, uncritically it seems, placed Lucy in the modern human line of descent, you won’t find it widely reported except in the Darwin-denier blogs and websites. This strategy is common when embarrassing mistakes are found in widely accepted evolutionary dogma. Keep it mum and let the embarrassing news become common knowledge over a long span of time. Haeckel’s embryos are a fine example of it.

Apr. 16, 2007 0:21 | Updated Apr. 16, 2007 15:39
Israeli researchers: ‘Lucy’ is not direct ancestor of humans
By JUDY SIEGEL-ITZKOVICH

Tel Aviv University anthropologists say they have disproven the theory that “Lucy” – the world-famous 3.2-million-year-old Australopithecus afarensis skeleton found in Ethiopia 33 years ago – is the last ancestor common to humans and another branch of the great apes family known as the “Robust hominids.”

The specific structure found in Lucy also appears in a species called Australopithecus robustus. Prof. Yoel Rak and colleagues at the Sackler School of Medicine’s department of anatomy and anthropology wrote, “The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Australopithecus afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of [Lucy] as a common ancestor.”

The robust hominids were discovered in southern Africa 69 years ago and are believed to have lived between 2 million and 1.2 million years ago. Their jaws and jaw muscles were adapted to the dry environment in which they lived.

Rak and colleagues studied 146 mature primate bone specimens, including those from modern humans, gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans and found that the “ramus element” of the mandible connecting the lower jaw to the skull is like that of the robust forms, therefore eliminating the possibility that Lucy and her kind are Man’s direct ancestors. They should therefore, the Israeli researchers said, “be placed as the beginning of the branch that evolved in parallel to ours.”