So you're admitting that you will not and cannot change your mind?
That is the very definition of close minded, a label I'm sure you'd love to apply to us.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So you're admitting that you will not and cannot change your mind?As long as there is a God and as long as there is still a bible, even avter the stones has started singing, I will not accept the loss.
in short. NEVA
Some admit it. AV in particular states regularly that he doesn't care what the evidence shows, he will follow his faith. What they don't understand is why that is a bad thing. When we bring up examples to educated them (such as the OP) they merely sidetrack instead of addressing the point. This thread so far is a perfect example.Indeed!
You point out a glaring inconsistency that will, no doubt, be tap danced around.
That said, I truly believe that deep down inside, they know they're wrong and are fighting against their own logic and reason in the process. I know that if they are honest with themselves, (and I assume most have the capacity for self evaluation, learning and maturing), they will agree that they are allowing their faith and beliefs to trump logic and reason.
And for the past three years here, I've begged science to use their tools to find evidence for the Creation and the Flood.
He's even told you where NOT to look, and how to find what you're looking for!
Get to it CSI --- most of your work has been done for you --- what's the problem?
As long as there is a God and as long as there is still a bible, even avter the stones has started singing, I will not accept the loss.
in short. NEVA
OK. Then why am I even trying. If people are blindy looking in the wrong direction, I cant blame them. My prairs will be with them, that is then the best I can do.
Do you think it's really going to matter to these guys if they find the Ark or not?
It could even have NOAH WAS HERE written inside, and it would mean nothing.
I notice you didn't (elaborate, that is)....let me tell you your response before you write it.
OK Tommy, tell us what particular observations we claim never took place. And what pray tell are the observations we ignore. Please elaborate Tommy.
There are at least three frauds in science.Scientists can and do record observations which never took place, they ignore those observations which dont fit the average, and "cooking" where only the data which fits the hypothesis is used and the rest is ignored.
Just take a look at the countless finds in the past and the quick conclusions ToE believers come to only later its found to be far from the truth. Just like anything else they might find. For as is the case every time, its not what is found but whats done with whats found.
Now that you are all a little angry because your faith is slightly threatened here, let me tell you your response before you write it.
OK Tommy, tell us what particular observations we claim never took place. And what pray tell are the observations we ignore. Please elaborate Tommy.
We have tiktaalik, and ERV.
Every fossils is a transitional. We have a bird fossil thats was changing form a lizard that walked and was sproating wings and learning to fly.
We have tested ALL this in the science lab, that makes it empirical.
Evolution is a fact not a theory.
Your a monkeys uncle no matter what you think. You use to be a fish. Not sure what you were between a fish and a monkey? But we will find the fossils.We have a tree made by unbiased, unassumed, unindoctrinated believers in ToE. Its there, check out a biology book if you dont believe us.
I think in one of the first posts I ever put up in these forms I stated "I have heard it all" like it states in Ecclesiastes 1:9 "there is nothing new under the sun."
...you have heard people correct your statements and are now attempting a pathetic parody in place of actual argument, and providing evidence for your claims. And you expect people to believe you? This kind of behaviour from fellow Christians is embarrassing, frankly.
It is a scientific theory, based on facts.
Anagnostic, please tell me you didn't mean this.I came here looking for some intellectual stimulation, and an opportunity to have some lively debate.
I am amazed that you bother to argue with people who are so uninformed about science and generally incapable of intelligent discussion.
Some of the Creationists posting here sound like they are about 15, and not top of the grade either.
Someone above claimed that people once thought the world was flat, because of 'philosophers'. Did he actually bother to find out if this is true? In fact, this was never a commonly held belief among educated people in the 'Modern Era' (at least there is no historical evidence for it).
Ironically, some texts in the Bible hint that a flat earth was accepted in the Bronze Age,
[SIZE=-1]"I saw a tree of great height at the center of the world. It was large and strong, with its top touching the heavens, and it could be seen from the ends of the earth." (Daniel 4: 7-8[/SIZE][SIZE=-1])[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
I can't post links yet, but you can search for [/SIZE]'The Flat-Earth Belief of Bible Writers' and[SIZE=-1] 'The Myth of the Flat Earth'.
[/SIZE]
Are you guys so desperate to show the Bible in a poor light that you'll find a passage in It detailing someone's DREAM, and use that to say it was taught as science?Daniel 4:10-11 said:10 Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:
Sorry to correct you, but evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is the theory that explains why and how evolution happens.
Evolution itself is an observable fact, just like gravity is an observable fact, or the computer I'm typing this on is an observable fact.
I came here looking for some intellectual stimulation, and an opportunity to have some lively debate.
I am amazed that you bother to argue with people who are so uninformed about science and generally incapable of intelligent discussion.
My statement didn't imply otherwise. I certainly wasn't meaning theory=guess, hence my insertion of the word scientific.
You are correct, you statement didn't imply otherwise. However, in light of the number of misunderstandings and misrepresentations (accidental or otherwise) I've seen from some of the creationists on these boards, I felt it wise to point out the difference once again.
Even I believe in evolution --- to a point.You are correct, you statement didn't imply otherwise. However, in light of the number of misunderstandings and misrepresentations (accidental or otherwise) I've seen from some of the creationists on these boards, I felt it wise to point out the difference once again.
Even I believe in evolution --- to a point.
Limited Evolution or Microevolution or Adaptation, I suppose you could call it.
But when it comes to macroevolution, I draw the line.
I'm not a Homo sapien --- I have a sin nature.
And when I see someone sin against God by breaking one of the 10 Commandments, that to me is proof that macroevolution doesn't exist.
To a 30-year-old like you, it would be --- to a 55-year-old like me, it would not.Ok, I've seen many creationists say this, and it's one of the stupidest arguments I've heard. You're essentially saying that you believe in evolution but you don't believe in evolution. Macro/micro it's the same thing.
Oh, really?What creationists mean with micro evolution is variations through mutations within a spieces. They have never been able to explain why said mutations abruplty stops when it would lead to what we call speciation, meaning that the mutations have gone on for so long, without the populations intermixing, that one population is too different from another population to breed fertile offspring.
Keep that up --- I love it when people come on here and say that.Dividing the same process up into two parts is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.
No --- the distinction between the two prefixes was dropped when creationists consistently pwned evolutionists in debates by simply asking evolutionists to show evidence of genus-to-genus change.If you accept the processes that lead to what you call "micro" evolution, then you accept evolution, and there's no need for this debate. This semantic jumble has only occured because creationists are finding it ever harder to deny the reality of evolution. It's sickening.
I'm already sure what a psychiatrist would tell me.You may think you do, but that's probably a mild case of paranoia. You should see a pshychiatrist about it.
An ape swipes the banana out of another ape's hand --- a human swipes a banana out of another human's hand --- any difference?How you come to this conclusion I will never understand. Breaking the ninth commandment is something creationists do every day. It's the very basis of their argument.
Anagnostic, please tell me you didn't mean this.Are you guys so desperate to show the Bible in a poor light that you'll find a passage in It detailing someone's DREAM, and use that to say it was taught as science?
If you guys ran the world like you interpret the Bible, and used the Bible as your standard, we'd all be in trouble.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?