STILL no evidence FOR creation/ID

[AV1611VET]

Which scientists?

The ones that were wrong.

(I guess that narrows it down to all of them, eh?)

 

[BNR32FAN]

The last thread I started commenting on this phenomenon got bogged down by trolls and eventually closed.

Most interestingly, no creationists presented anything even close to evidence. It was all the usual antics...



And it is always... ALWAYS... 'arguments' against evolution.

NEVER arguments FOR creation/ID.

Analogies to human activity, bible verses, 'problems' with evolution - none of these, not one of them, is evidence FOR creation or ID.


It is almost as if creationists have admitted to themselves, subconsciously, that they cannot actually offer any positive supporting evidence FOR their mere beliefs, and are content to simply attack 'the other.' This is true, whether the creationist is a one-line snark master, or a verbose citation and quote bombing autodidact.

There are tons of evidence supporting creation. I think perhaps you are confusing evidence with proof. Evidence doesn’t necessarily prove anything it just validates the possibility of truth.

 

[Jimmy D]

There are tons of evidence supporting creation. I think perhaps you are confusing evidence with proof. Evidence doesn’t necessarily prove anything it just validates the possibility of truth.

Kudos to you for dragging the thread back on topic!

What evidence did you have in mind specifically?

 

[Aman777]

No. Russia isn't mentioned in the Bible, neither is Japan or Korea or China. Or even Canada or Scotland or Spain or France. Or Denmark or Finland or Iceland or Greenland. I could go on.

No need since your confusion shows. Here's a good example.

Eze 38:2 Son of man, set thy face against Gog, (Russia) the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech (Moscow) and Tubal, (Tubal..current Eastern capitol of Russia) and prophesy against him,

Study to show yourself approved. Amen?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

How about Greece?

I love how you deliberately and blithely ignore my point.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No need since your confusion shows. Here's a good example.

Eze 38:2 Son of man, set thy face against Gog, (Russia) the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech (Moscow) and Tubal, (Tubal..current Eastern capitol of Russia) and prophesy against him,

Study to show yourself approved. Amen?

Absolutely and utterly wrong. And when I study this, it only shows that you absolutely know nothing about the Bible!

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Absolutely and utterly wrong. And when I study this, it only shows that you absolutely know nothing about the Bible!

To me it looks as if Aman777's interpretation of the Bible is so far from the original text, that in effect he has made up his own religion that has only a tenuous link to Christianity. As he insists that his interpretation is the truth and the whole truth, then it also looks as if he is putting himself in the role of prophet.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There are tons of evidence supporting creation. I think perhaps you are confusing evidence with proof. Evidence doesn’t necessarily prove anything it just validates the possibility of truth.

Give me your BEST piece of evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Give me your BEST piece of evidence.

From an evolutionary standpoint, where did the angels come fr...

... oh, wait ... science doesn't believe in angels.

Nevermind.

Acts 23:8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

From an evolutionary standpoint, where did the angels come fr...

... oh, wait ... science doesn't believe in angels.

Nevermind.

Acts 23:8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

'Science' is not an agent that believes in things. Science is a method, the best method we have, to work out what is true and what is false.

Looking at your point, before anyone should consider how 'angels' would fit into models of evolution, first we should see if there is any objective verifiable evidence that angels exist in the first place. And so far there isn't any.

 

[DogmaHunter]

From an evolutionary standpoint, where did the angels come fr...

... oh, wait ... science doesn't believe in angels.

Neither do hammers, but they get the job done nonetheless.

 

[Jimmy D]

From an evolutionary standpoint, where did the angels come fr...

... oh, wait ... science doesn't believe in angels.

Nevermind.

Acts 23:8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

Maybe it's just me being nostalgic.... but I'm sure that your trolling used to be amusing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Looking at your point, before anyone should consider how 'angels' would fit into models of evolution, first we should see if there is any objective verifiable evidence that angels exist in the first place. And so far there isn't any.

Science is myopic, isn't it?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Science is myopic, isn't it?

Even the most acute visual system in the entire world cannot see something that isn't actually there.

Your claims that science is 'myopic' are meaningless unless you can produce some actual objective verifiable evidence that your claims are correct. E.g. that angels exist.

Don't you think that after years of making claims on here, that you should actually back one of them up?

 

[AV1611VET]

Your claims that science is 'myopic' are meaningless unless you can produce some actual objective verifiable evidence that your claims are correct. E.g. that angels exist.

Don't you think that after years of making claims on here, that you should actually back one of them up?

In other words, contradict myself?

 

[Aman777]

Absolutely and utterly wrong. And when I study this, it only shows that you absolutely know nothing about the Bible!

Can you tell us who was the father of Magog, Tubal and Meshesh? Hint: They went north from Babel to what is today Russia. As I posted, Tubal is the eastern capital of Russia and Meshesh/Moscow is the western capital of Russia. I challenge you to identify these boys grandfather. Have you ever read the Bible?

 

[Aman777]

To me it looks as if Aman777's interpretation of the Bible is so far from the original text, that in effect he has made up his own religion that has only a tenuous link to Christianity. As he insists that his interpretation is the truth and the whole truth, then it also looks as if he is putting himself in the role of prophet.

Sounds to me like you are willingly ignorant of what happens in the last days before Jesus returns. Don't you know that God is pouring out His Truth through Science? Can you tell us another way to refute the foolishness of today's "so called" scientists? As the end nears, Science will confirm Genesis Chapter One as the Truth which agrees with Scripture, Science and History, no matter what you think. Amen?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

In other words, contradict myself?

Only if you at some time posted 'I have absolutely no argument and cannot support any of my claims with evidence.'

Did you?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Sounds to me like you are willingly ignorant of what happens in the last days before Jesus returns. Don't you know that God is pouring out His Truth through Science? Can you tell us another way to refute the foolishness of today's "so called" scientists? As the end nears, Science will confirm Genesis Chapter One as the Truth which agrees with Scripture, Science and History, no matter what you think. Amen?

Personally I believe that us discovering that oysters are actually super-intelligent pan-dimensional beings and secretly rule the world by mind control is more likely than Jesus returning in some Biblical end days.

 

[AV1611VET]

Only if you at some time posted 'I have absolutely no argument ...

That ain't gonna happen, chief.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again:

In my opinion, my single best point I've ever made here is my Apple Challenge.

I consider it my magnum opus (albeit I believe it came from God himself).

... and cannot support any of my claims with evidence.'

I'm second to none here in claiming there is absolutely no scientific evidence for the events that occurred in Genesis 1.

No ion trail, no plasma cloud, no time quartz, nothing.

Did you?

I don't contradict myself.

At least, I try not to.