Missing link was a lie

[AV1611VET]

I have believe that people like dad and Avet are intellectually dishonest about science and The Holy Bible.

I would ask for specifics, but you're entitled to your opinion, and I suspect you're just using [dad and] me to make brownie points with the big-timers here anyway.

You would have to hunt far and wide here to find one thing that I disagree with these guys about -- (as far as their conclusions are concerned).

In fact, lurker, here are some things I agree with these guys about, where my own church would probably disagree:

• the earth is 4.57 billion years old
• the universe is 13.7 billion years old
• creationism should not be taught in public schools
• Intelligent Design can take a hike
• there is zero evidence for the Creation
• there is zero evidence for the Flood

And since you were kind enough not to ask, I'll go ahead and tell you a little secret that your clipboard cronies are aware of, but don't agree with: I hold science up to a much higher Standard than even they do.

So when one particular poster shows up now to put you on his FRIENDS LIST, just so he can have more friends than I, just remember where you heard all this.

 

[Belk]

I would ask for specifics, but you're entitled to your opinion, and I suspect you're just using [dad and] me to make brownie points with the big-timers here anyway.

You would have to hunt far and wide here to find one thing that I disagree with these guys about -- (as far as their conclusions are concerned).

In fact, lurker, here are some things I agree with these guys about, where my own church would probably disagree:

• the earth is 4.57 billion years old

How many years do you believe have passed since the earth was formed?

• the universe is 13.7 billion years old

How many years do you believe have passed since the universe was formed?

• creationism should not be taught in public schools
• Intelligent Design can take a hike

You also believe the same about evolution, no?

• there is zero evidence for the Creation
• there is zero evidence for the Flood

But you believe they happened and any evidence that might show them to be true was removed, correct?

And since you were kind enough not to ask, I'll go ahead and tell you a little secret that your clipboard cronies are aware of, but don't agree with: I hold science up to a much higher Standard than even they do.

Sayng science is only correct when it does not contradict what you believe is not a higher standard AV. It is simply claiming yourself to be correct no matter what evidence is presented.

So when one particular poster shows up now to put you on his FRIENDS LIST, just so he can have more friends than I, just remember where you heard all this.

Yes AV, it is all a giant popularity contest and you are the poor picked on kid in the corner. When did you graduate from high school again?

 

[AV1611VET]

* WARNING: THE FOLLOWING ANSWERS MAY CONFUSE UNIFORMITARIANISTS *
​

How many years do you believe have passed since the earth was formed?

6014 -- and not formed -- created.

How many years do you believe have passed since the universe was formed?

6014 -- and not formed -- created.

You also believe the same about evolution, no?

Correct.

But you believe they happened and any evidence that might show them to be true was removed, correct?

No evidence for the Creation Week would have been generated; and the evidence for the Flood was stockpiled elsewhere* for sanitary, safety, and topographical reasons.

* Example: the White Cliffs of Dover.

Sayng science is only correct when it does not contradict what you believe is not a higher standard AV.

That's why I don't say that.

It is simply claiming yourself to be correct no matter what evidence is presented.

That's why I've never said that.

Yes AV, it is all a giant popularity contest and you are the poor picked on kid in the corner. When did you graduate from high school again?

You don't know the story behind the quote and your ridicule doesn't apply.

 

[SithDoughnut]

* WARNING: THE FOLLOWING ANSWERS MAY CONFUSE UNIFORMITARIANISTS *​

They're not confusing, they're just wrong. After all, to create something with age, you have to create the time for the age to occur in. Otherwise, it isn't age. That's not science, that's basic semantics.
​

 

[AV1611VET]

They're not confusing, they're just wrong. After all, to create something with age, you have to create the time for the age to occur in. Otherwise, it isn't age. That's not science, that's basic semantics.

Let's see who's confused:

Can God create a rock tomorrow, so old it falls apart the next day?

If not -- would that answer be in respect to this passage:

Mt 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

... or in spite of it?

 

[JustMeSee]

• the earth is 4.57 billion years old
• the universe is 13.7 billion years old
• creationism should not be taught in public schools
• Intelligent Design can take a hike
• there is zero evidence for the Creation
• there is zero evidence for the Flood

The earth was created 6000 years ago with embedded age. Right?

The universe was created 6000 years ago with embedded age. Right?

You see evolutionists as creationists. Right?

Science, evolution, and any other idea that conflicts with your personal interpretation can take a hike. Right?

G-d did not leave evidence for the creation week, but did not deceive. Right?

The global flood happened but left no evidence (other than the water on Neptune), but G-d cleaned up the evidence. Still not deceiving. Right?

G-d did not kill children in the flood, because there were none at that time. Right?

G-d did not kill first born children/babies of Egypt, because there were only adults. Right?

---
These are things you believe (know). Correct?

It is amazing the hoops people jump through to reconcile science with the Bible verses. I am surprised that I never felt this need in my relationship with G-d.

If nothing else, I commend you for your conviction to your unchangeable ideas.

 

[AV1611VET]

If nothing else, I commend you for your conviction to your unchangeable ideas.

Thank you -- will respond later after Euchre Tournament.

 

[JustMeSee]

I would ask for specifics, but you're entitled to your opinion, and I suspect you're just using [dad and] me to make brownie points with the big-timers here anyway.

I consider dad and you to be big timers around here. At least by the standards of C&E post count anyway.

And no, I am not trying to get brownie points from anyone.

I was just stating my uneducated opinion.

 

[AV1611VET]

My answers in red:

The earth was created 6000 years ago with embedded age. Right?

Right.

The universe was created 6000 years ago with embedded age. Right?

Right.

You see evolutionists as creationists. Right?

Right.

Science, evolution, and any other idea that conflicts with your personal interpretation can take a hike. Right?

Not my personal interpretation -- the Bible.

G-d did not leave evidence for the creation week, but did not deceive. Right?

It's not that He 'didn't leave any' -- there was nothing to leave.

Any evidence means He would have had to go out of His way to manufacture some.

The global flood happened but left no evidence (other than the water on Neptune), but G-d cleaned up the evidence. Still not deceiving. Right?

It depends -- I'm still out on this one.

I personally believe that such things as the White Cliffs of Dover was God's way of stockpiling the aftermath of the Flood.

If it was useable and not a threat as far as safety and sanitation, why not just sweep it into a pile, then shape it into what it is today?

Sort of like sweeping the floor and finding a penny.

G-d did not kill children in the flood, because there were none at that time. Right?

I'm not sure.

I find it hard to believe there weren't any; but if there were -- yes, He did.

G-d did not kill first born children/babies of Egypt, because there were only adults. Right?

Wrong.

---
These are things you believe (know). Correct?

Correct.

 

[Belk]

That's why I don't say that.

That's why I've never said that.

Weather you have said it or not is irrelevant since that is what you are doing.

You seem to have this strange notion that the label defines what you do, instead of the other way around.

 

[dad]

I'm sorry, but this thread has gone all over the place. Very frustrating.

Dive in, you might make a splash.

 

[dad]

How can there be a missing link if a god made us? before a god made us there was nothing.

No, there were plants and birds and fish first. Depending on the time of day, maybe even the beasts..have to look that one up..

Could you please answer a couple of question dad? we are supposed to be made in gods image so what colour is god and is god a man or a woman?

We are the color of free choice. The color of eternal life. The color of rulers over nature. The skin pigments likely are evolved or adapted over time, depending on various environments.

 

[dad]

Lurker here!
I have believe that people like dad and Avet are intellectually dishonest about science and The Holy Bible. I get a strong impression from them and several others on this thread that cognitive dissonance is in play.

OP: Misinterpreting a fossil does not equate to a lie. You notice that scientists corrected the error, not some creationist anyone.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Liars spread lies like disease, some willinly, some unknowingly. The claim obviously was made by many that this thing was a missing link. That is a lie. Period.

Many creationist speakers, like Hovind, on the other hand continue to deliberately lie even after they are corrected.

So tell them. Meanwhile, stand corrected.

(I don't believe I read this whole thread. It was more GA than C&E.)

Great, so you are not really even qualified as being the lurker you claimed!

 

[SLP]

Maybe it was posted by the exact same person? Sometimes you guys miss the forest for the trees, pathetic. Nothing was exposed over there any more than you expose anything here. We're all ears.

Ummm...

That was actually, you know, sort of my point.

Nothing gets by a master debater like you, I guess. I mean, you've never lost.

Having read many of your posts, I have a feeling that any and all attempts at actually helping you understand any of these issues would be like - what is it - pearls before swine?

 

[SLP]

Because the bible says so, and science is clueless.

Exodus 4:25 (New International Version)

25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son's foreskin and touched {Moses'} feet with it. [a] "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me," she said.



1 Samuel 18:25 (New International Version)

25 Saul replied, "Say to David, 'The king wants no other price for the bride than a hundred Philistine foreskins, to take revenge on his enemies.' " Saul's plan was to have David fall by the hands of the Philistines.

Weird....

 

[JustMeSee]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Liars spread lies like disease, some willinly, some unknowingly. The claim obviously was made by many that this thing was a missing link. That is a lie. Period.

So tell them. Meanwhile, stand corrected.


Great, so you are not really even qualified as being the lurker you claimed!

Yet you have no evidence that it is not a transitional fossil between animal 'a' and 'b'. Or do you?

To present false information with the intention of deceiving.

You have presented no evidence that anyone's intention was to deceive.

You have failed to present evidence of a different state past.

I lurk (read) many threads in which I never post anything... Lurking, no?

 

[dad]

Ummm...

That was actually, you know, sort of my point.

Nothing gets by a master debater like you, I guess. I mean, you've never lost.

Having read many of your posts, I have a feeling that any and all attempts at actually helping you understand any of these issues would be like - what is it - pearls before swine?

So something I said was your point. Good man. You might be onto something. How much help could I need with you agreeing with me?

 

[dad]

Exodus 4:25 (New International Version)

25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son's foreskin and touched {Moses'} feet with it. [a] "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me," she said.



1 Samuel 18:25 (New International Version)

25 Saul replied, "Say to David, 'The king wants no other price for the bride than a hundred Philistine foreskins, to take revenge on his enemies.' " Saul's plan was to have David fall by the hands of the Philistines.

Weird....

I can see that certain body parts tweak your interest. Doesn't really do it for me though. Thanks for sharing.

 

[dad]

Yet you have no evidence that it is not a transitional fossil between animal 'a' and 'b'. Or do you?

Even better, who cares? What if it was? One thing we can say, it sure wasn't a transition to man!

To present false information with the intention of deceiving.

You have presented no evidence that anyone's intention was to deceive.

Almost anything to do with so called science is false information! Sometimes it must be presented, before slaying it. The silly lemur thingie that some called a missing link to man was a deception. Exposing it is a good thing. Chill.

You have failed to present evidence of a different state past.

God gave us the info. I don't need to evidence God, try google. He and His book have been around the block a few times. Tested, tried, proven o'er and o'er. Like silver tried in a furnace seven times, one might say. So, if history also agrees, and all scientific evidence we have fits, why, who are we to scoff?

If there is a science claim, in this science debate area, that included a certain state past in it, why, then we would have to take a lookey see. Sure enough there is. All so called science rests on a present state in the future and past. It must pony up, or be relegated to being a fable.

That is where we are at here. I am just helping people flush.

I lurk (read) many threads in which I never post anything... Lurking, no?

Good. Keep up the good work. Next time you surface, careful in admitting you didn't hardly read squat in the thread though. Avoid embarrassment. Be happy.

 

[JustMeSee]

I will pray for you. Bye!