proving evolution as just a "theory"

[TLK Valentine]

Good to hear.Preventive medicine, I take it? Keeps the physicians employed, doesn't it?

Also far more effective than sacrificing a lamb at the altar.

 

[AV1611VET]

Also far more effective than sacrificing a lamb at the altar.

Really? how so, professor?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Really? how so, professor?

I'll leave it to you, independent Baptist, to explain how animal sacrifices stop the spread of germs.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll leave it to you, independent Baptist, to explain how animal sacrifices stop the spread of germs.

You didn't say anything about germs, professor.

You just said it was far more effective.

Lambs were not sacrificed to prevent the spread of germs.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You didn't say anything about germs, professor.

I keep forgetting you don't know the connection between germs and illness...

You just said it was far more effective.

In matters regarding illness, indeed.

Lambs were not sacrificed to prevent the spread of germs.

But of course -- the people who sacrificed them were proudly ignorant (wore it like a badge, one would say) about the existence of germs.

 

[AV1611VET]

But of course -- the people who sacrificed them were proudly ignorant (wore it like a badge, one would say) about the existence of germs.

But their Commander-in-Chief wasn't.

And as long as they obeyed, they were okay and didn't have to know about germs.

Every seventh year they were not to plant anything so the land could "rest."

I wonder if any educatee here in this 21st century knows why?

(Farmers would probably know, but I seriously doubt academicians would, unless they were in FFA or something.)

And I won't even get into Numbers 5.

Scientists are humbled enough by other things in the Bible to pick on them with that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Our professor of literature here brought up the point about the inefficacy of sacrificing lambs.

Does any secular educatee here want to tell me how these lambs did indeed serve a secular purpose?

I mean ... yes, they were sacrificed to God as one of the five major sacrifices in the Old Testament ... but they also served a secular purpose.

Anyone know what that was?

Or don't they teach that stuff in higher academia?

After all, someone might get the idea that the Jews weren't so ignorant after all!

 

[TLK Valentine]

But their Commander-in-Chief wasn't.

Which only goes to show how ignorant they were about their Comander-in-Chief's work.

And as long as they obeyed, they were okay and didn't have to know about germs.

They never got sick? Illness was unknown to them?

Every seventh year they were not to plant anything so the land could "rest."

I wonder if any educatee here in this 21st century knows why?

(Farmers would probably know, but I seriously doubt academicians would, unless they were in FFA or something.)

Leave the fields fallow so that they can reabsorb nutrients back into the soil.

And I won't even get into Numbers 5.

Scientists are humbled enough by other things in the Bible to pick on them with that.

Indeed -- illness caused by demonic possession and/or divine wrath is indeed quite humbling... far more so than germ theory.

 

[xianghua]

But you've already admitted that self-replicating cars and robots don't exist. So it's clearly not a good explanation for something if that something doesn't exist in the first place.

incorrect. i do think that a self replicating robot exist, i just call it a penguin. and also a self replicating motor like the flagellum.

If you can prove the existence of a self-replicating car or robot, then maybe you'll have a point.

i already prove it here:

My favorite argument for the existence of God

 

[AV1611VET]

Leave the fields fallow so that they can reabsorb nutrients back into the soil.

Close enough.

It was a form of pest control.

Indeed -- illness caused by demonic possession and/or divine wrath is indeed quite humbling... far more so than germ theory.

Either that, or it was a lie detector.

(What does TLK stand for?)

 

[xianghua]

The things you keep pointing to aren't these massive out of order, turn evolution upside down type discoveries you think they are.

so why you cant answer my question? again: where is the limit of pushing a creaure appearance back? 30 my? 50? you must define a limit. otherwise any fossil will fit well with evolution.

 

[xianghua]

That object could not possibly have babies.

so if it will be able to do that you will not call it a car?

Once again please answer: When you refer to a self reproducing car are you talking about an animal or an inanimate machine? When we ask that question you are completely paralyzed and refuse to answer. If you cannot answer a basic question about this figment of your imagination, how is anybody supposed to know what you are talking about?

i talking about a car or a robot that are able to reproduce. you are welcome to call them animals if you want. it will not make any difference.

that is your assertion. How do you know there is not a stepwise plan that you are not aware of?

exactly like i know that there is no stepwise way to evolve a car from a self replicating molecule.

But even if there was no stepwise plan here, how do you know that something did not work around the hurdle, and evolution proceed from there?

if we falsify the evolution of even a single trait then its means evolution is false. we dont need to believe in the rest. as even darwin admit.

Sir, you and I agreed that animals can do some things that a watch can not do. The fact that a watch cannot evolve does not prove an animal can't.

by this criteria: a car can do something that a watch cant (driving for instance)- therefore a car can evolve naturally and a watch cant.

 

[xianghua]

Human fossils can be found in the same layer as dinosaurs

it will not falsify evolution. in this case they will just call it "convergent evolution". means human-like creature evolved twice. actually, its already happened (just with a mole rather then human):

Golden mole - Wikipedia

 

[TLK Valentine]

Either that, or it was a lie detector.

How so? A liar gets just as sick as an honest man.

(What does TLK stand for?)

You wouldn't believe me if I told you... that's why I'll never tell.

 

[bhsmte]

incorrect. i do think that a self replicating robot exist, i just call it a penguin. and also a self replicating motor like the flagellum.




i already prove it here:

My favorite argument for the existence of God

Have you defined robot for us yet???????

 

[AV1611VET]

How so? A liar gets just as sick as an honest man.

The Indians would have men line up, and one would take a knife and go down the line with a hot blade and just touch their tongue.

The one who yelped was considered under suspicion, as lying dries the tongue.

You wouldn't believe me if I told you... that's why I'll never tell.

Fair enough.

None of my business anyway.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Our professor of literature here brought up the point about the inefficacy of sacrificing lambs.

Does any secular educatee here want to tell me how these lambs did indeed serve a secular purpose?

I mean ... yes, they were sacrificed to God as one of the five major sacrifices in the Old Testament ... but they also served a secular purpose.

Anyone know what that was?

Or don't they teach that stuff in higher academia?

After all, someone might get the idea that the Jews weren't so ignorant after all!

You have the floor, Baptist...

 

[Aman777]

TLK could possibly mean To LooK out for...The Lying SnaKe...or To Love Knicely....or etc, etc, and etc

 

[pitabread]

incorrect. i do think that a self replicating robot exist, i just call it a penguin.

All this demonstrates is that you don't know what the word 'robot' means. Using words incorrectly is not a valid way to make an argument.

i already prove it here:

My favorite argument for the existence of God

No you didn't. See above.

 

[pitabread]

so why you cant answer my question?

I already answered it. If there is something you didn't understand in my response, then I'll be happy to elaborate.