Missing link was a lie

[dad]

There you go again, asking us to prove a negative.

Oh, no, no need to do that at all. Relax. Only IF you make unholy claims about how the past was, BASED on a same state past, as so called science DOES, would you have to prove it, big time! Or it remains a negative, nether world concept. Of course.

You have to prove that evolving was different in the past.

Nope. I am exempt from all that nonsense. Only if I, too, had a purely scientific case based solely on the one state would I need to do that. You guys are the frauds here, now exposed, that have done that, so you either prove it, or stand exposed as a fable, in the true sense of the word.

As far as real world evidence, I have the historical records, and they clearly talk of a different past. I have the known spiritual, which is undeniable, whether you understand it or not. I also have God telling us, and I think He oughta know. I also have agreement with all evidences we do have in science. All. Repeat all. And I do mean all. Continetal drift, cosmology, geology, fossils, etc etc etc. ALL support a different state past at least as well, or better than a same state one!!

What predictions can you make that can be tested if "evolving was different?" How was it different?

I predict man and beast was created, and started in Eden. (well, Adam was brought there pretty quick, to live and manufactured elsewhere).

All you have is your warped, fallible interpretation of scripture and nothing else. Keep shouting at the rain, in your lonely little Church of One, dad. The rest of us will stick with reality.

All you have is warped doubt of all things godly or spiritual, or ancient, and a weird obsession with physical only knowledge of man, as if it must be worshiped above all.

 

[Tomatoman]

dad:

I understand that the timeframes of the bible require rapid evolution, and that the differences in the past allowed it, just as they allowed men to live near a thousand years.

So you are hypothesising, without any proof, super speeded up evolution to fit in with the Bible, although this contradicts all evidence? At the same time in this mythical past men could live for a thousand years because...because, er...who knows.

What you are doing is making it up as you go along. I don't know what the point of that is.

dad:

Any more questions, oh knight of the defeated point?

Yes. Do you actually, really, sincerely believe this guff? Does anybody you know believe this twaddle? Even among harcore, screwball 6000 year old earth creationists your ideas would raise eyebrows. Do you actually live in this fantasy world?

 

[dad]

If it's a conspiracy controlled by some evil super entity, surely disagreements wouldn't happen, be encouraged and wouldn't be public and so vocal. Your OP is evidence against your own conspiracy theory.

It is a rush hour of the deceived, with no traffic control signs.. There are bound to be mistakes.

Assuming that additional unevidenced hypotheses shouldn't be taken into account is the default position, until we have any substantial reason to include them. You wouldn't be able to live a normal life if you applied your reasoning to everything as you'd have to be an agnostic about everything. You'd be paralyzed if you constantly had to disprove any imaginary, unevidenced hypothesis before any action could be taken.

Calm down. My normal life happens to be in the here and now. Right in this present state. As long as science sticks here, to what it KNOWS, it is real science. (even though much of that is evil, like womd)

Again, you're not answering my queries. Let me keep it simple:

1.Why is faith bad?
2.Why do you think faith is bad, considering that you're a man of faith?

Faith does not save men. Only faith in Jesus does.

No, you've exposed a disagreement. I don't take these scientists words as gospel. You constantly argue as if you do, and then turn around and say that you don't trust them at all. You're either being inconsistant, or you're communicating very poorly.

Peter

Either they are to be believed, or not! Here we see they are not. Even by each other!

 

[Split Rock]

I believe that God the Creator, created heaven and earth. I believe that He is infinite. I am not. Science is stumbling along, attempting to understand His creation...and has an "Oops!" factor that is quite amusing. Always has and still is. Science epitomizes how flawed man is, even as he thinks he "knows sumthin' fer sher" but then the error of that assumption flies in his face later. Aah yes, the majesty of man, in all his glory. Quite a sight to see

An even better example is Man's attempt to interpret scripture. The stumbling factor is even more astounding and dad is a good example of that!

I agree with the OP.

How can you agree with the O.P., when you claim that making a mistake is not lying?

from one voice of reason to another

dad, the voice of reason??

 

[Split Rock]

Oh, no, no need to do that at all. Relax. Only IF you make unholy claims about how the past was, BASED on a same state past, as so called science DOES, would you have to prove it, big time! Or it remains a negative, nether world concept. Of course.

I see, and you are the one to determine what constitutes "unholy claims," right Mr. Blasphemer??

Nope. I am exempt from all that nonsense.

You are not "exempt" from reality. If so, please show us how you can defy gravity by jumping off the roof of a 12 story building while praying to God. You're his prophet, dad, I'm sure he'll listen!

As far as real world evidence, I have the historical records, and they clearly talk of a different past. I have the known spiritual, which is undeniable, whether you understand it or not. I also have God telling us, and I think He oughta know. I also have agreement with all evidences we do have in science. All. Repeat all. And I do mean all. Continetal drift, cosmology, geology, fossils, etc etc etc. ALL support a different state past at least as well, or better than a same state one!!

LOL! Show me the "Known spiritual." Show me all the evidence that supports your non-PO past, especially since you have also claimed there is none. Make up your mind. God said nothing about a non-PO past... it is all in your head. Show me the passages that claim this from scripture, or stop claiming your nonsense is "God's Word," Blasphemer!

I predict man and beast was created, and started in Eden. (well, Adam was brought there pretty quick, to live and manufactured elsewhere).

I prediction that can be tested!

All you have is warped doubt of all things godly or spiritual, or ancient, and a weird obsession with physical only knowledge of man, as if it must be worshiped above all.

Says the Blasphemer who claims his made up fantasies are "God's Word."

 

[Spacewyrm]

Hey dad, I've got a question for you. Why do you keep telling people who are clearly not agitated at all to "calm down" or "relax"?

 

[Split Rock]

Hey dad, I've got a question for you. Why do you keep telling people who are clearly not agitated at all to "calm down" or "relax"?

It's part of his "schtick."

 

[dad]

I see, and you are the one to determine what constitutes "unholy claims," right Mr. Blasphemer??

Unbiblical is unholy.

You are not "exempt" from reality. If so, please show us how you can defy gravity by jumping off the roof of a 12 story building while praying to God. You're his prophet, dad, I'm sure he'll listen!

Reread what I said. I am exempt from the burdens of a false science claim.

LOL! Show me the "Known spiritual." Show me all the evidence that supports your non-PO past, especially since you have also claimed there is none. Make up your mind. God said nothing about a non-PO past... it is all in your head. Show me the passages that claim this from scripture, or stop claiming your nonsense is "God's Word," Blasphemer!

Science needs to grow some ability to see, before it can be shown. It can't see anything but physical. The known spiritual affects lives, and had impacts that were observed, and felt. God's word does tell us of creation week, and that is outside our laws. So is the flood. So is the future, and etc. Really.

I prediction that can be tested!

If you want something science can test, pee in a vial. If you want something already tested, try the Calendar Man, and prophesies of the book of books.

 

[dad]

Hey dad, I've got a question for you. Why do you keep telling people who are clearly not agitated at all to "calm down" or "relax"?

Easy. Here is an example of the last person I asked to do just that.

"Assuming that additional unevidenced hypotheses shouldn't be taken into account is the default position, until we have any substantial reason to include them. You wouldn't be able to live a normal life if you applied your reasoning to everything as you'd have to be an agnostic about everything. You'd be paralyzed if you constantly had to disprove any imaginary, unevidenced hypothesis before any action could be taken."

The poor guy was obsessing about what a different state past would mean, ..oh you would be paralyzed, unable to be normal, agnostic about everything...

Actually, accepting that the future new heavens will be different has to do with the future. Not some insane fear that the present sky is falling! Same with the far past. All it really means, is that we are free to take the depraved nightmare scenarios of so called science, and dismiss them for what they are.

 

[Tomatoman]

dad, do you ever discuss your ideas with people in real life, and, if so, what do they say to you?

 

[dad]

dad, do you ever discuss your ideas with people in real life, and, if so, what do they say to you?

Yes, sir!

 

[Tomatoman]

dad:

Yes, sir!

Somehow, I doubt that. Mind you, in your head anything is possible.

 

[dad]

dad:


Somehow, I doubt that. Mind you, in your head anything is possible.

Well, actually, face to face, I seldom talk of heavenly things. But when I do, I can't seem to find anyone that can get into it too deep, to say the least. Once in awhile, I get some little objection, which I quickly deal with, but most people have never realy delved into the depths of the creation issues, or the bible, or even science. Remember, even if someone has a degree, and a high falutin position, they usually are in some narrow field. So, they are really no match for the person that is less narrowly focused, and biblically savvy to boot

 

[Nostromo]

Well, actually, face to face, I seldom talk of heavenly things. But when I do, I can't seem to find anyone that can get into it too deep, to say the least.

Perhaps it's because that isn't a real subject.

Remember, even if someone has a degree, and a high falutin position, they usually are in some narrow field. So, they are really no match for the person that is less narrowly focused, and biblically savvy to boot

I'll remember that next time I need surgery I should probably ask the local handyman, he can throw me back together and I might get my sink fixed at the same time.

 

[dad]

Perhaps it's because that isn't a real subject.
I'll remember that next time I need surgery I should probably ask the local handyman, he can throw me back together and I might get my sink fixed at the same time.

Right. That really clears up your position..confused.

 

[Nostromo]

My position, should it need clearing up, is that you are talking utter rubbish.

 

[plindboe]

It is a rush hour of the deceived, with no traffic control signs.. There are bound to be mistakes.

But disagreements are not mistakes, they're an integrated and encouraged part of science. Conspiracies are secretive by definition. Frequent, vocal disagreement is the exact thing you should never expect to find in any conspiracy.

Calm down. My normal life happens to be in the here and now. Right in this present state. As long as science sticks here, to what it KNOWS, it is real science. (even though much of that is evil, like womd)

I am calm. There's no reason why your reasoning should only apply to the distant past. By only applying it to the past you're being inconsistant.

*When you approach a red light in your car you assume that universal laws determining friction haven't changed since you last stepped on the break pedal.
*When you set your alarm clock to wake you next morning you assume that time will work practically the same in the near future, so that the alarm will wake you up when need be.
*When you put one leg in front of the other to take a step you assume that your muscles and neurons will work as before so you won't fall down.

In all these cases you assume that the rules haven't changed in the past and won't change in the future, instead of insisting that you first have to disprove any imaginary scenario that could have made them different. Without evidence to the contrary, there's no reason to think that the rules have changed.

Basically it's Occam's razor-thinking. You don't add unevidenced hypotheses and you stick to the working explanation, until there's a substantial reason to make changes. You apply this thinking to everything else in life, but concerning the distant past you mysteriously make an exception.

Faith does not save men. Only faith in Jesus does.

Again, this doesn't answer my question. If all faith is bad, then it makes sense to use the word 'faith' in a derogatory fashion. You on the other hand believe that some faith is bad and some faith is good, yet you use the word 'faith' as if the label denotes something bad.

Note that I'm not asking you if 'some faith' is bad. I'm asking you why 'faith' is bad. You keep answering the first question, even though I never asked it.

Either they are to be believed, or not! Here we see they are not. Even by each other!

You disagree with me, and I disagree with you. By your logic that proves that we are both wrong.

The poor guy was obsessing

No.

about what a different state past would mean

No.

Peter

 

[The Barbarian]

Do you ever get the feeling dad is an atheist, trying to make Christians look like idiots?

 

[dad]

My position, should it need clearing up, is that you are talking utter rubbish.

So, you cannot talk about the failed missing link, or why the mechanisms of adaptation had to have been in the same state, or in any way defend a position. OK. You have no position, you made that clear. Nothing to brag about, I'd say. Carry on.

 

[Nostromo]

You presented an erroneous argument and then backed it up with indefensible claims. There is nothing to talk about.