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.
Oh they know, they are just in the excuse stage is all.
The Bible says nothing of how long ago the universe was created. Only mankind and the animals created with him. Which were created after the darkness that befell the earth.
Some say comet - some say meteor - some described it in terms of angels cast out of heaven.
But when the Hebrew word "hayah" is properly translated that discrepancy goes away. "And the earth *became - hayah* desolate and waste. And darkness *became - hayah* upon the surface of the deep.
And hence the dinosaurs went extinct. And another unknown period of time passes and God moves and the darkness clears. And man is created upon the destruction - the sixth creative act in a period of 5 unknown extinctions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#Major_extinction_events
And an unknown period spent within the garden before we begin to even count time.
Pure Darwinian mysticism.
Actually nested hierarchies are specifically indicitave of design. The mere fact of having a discernable nested hierarchy requires that life be split into distinct types.
Evolution, this magical process you believe in, if it was actually true, would produce extremely smooth gradations between all forms of life. That is actually what you expect to see. Your cult leaders haven't informed you of this, so I'm sure you don't understand.
So just keep saying the mantra: "nested hierarchy" over and over again since it sounds technical and impressive.
You really have no idea what you're talking about. You don't understand your theory. You just chant phrases. "DNA! GENETICS! FOSSILS! ANATOMY!"
You do not realize how contradictory all those data sets can be (and often is) and Evolution can simply mold itself to accommodate it. The data "fits like a glove" to Evolution like a lump of warm jello "fits like a glove" in about a million different shaped containers.
-Fossils can be out of sequence, (as some are) and it is a "temporal paradox" of ancestors fossilizing after descendants.
-Molecular clock expectations can be way off, and it is simply a case of unexpected levels of conservation. (a molecular biologist actually stepped in this thread earlier and affirmed this character of evolution theory's uselessness)
-ERV's can be way off of assumptions and the problem can be pushed back to imaginary events occurring within imaginary common ancestors.
Since you don't actually critically examine your theory, you don't understand this. Evolutionists just sit around and chant mantras. I am seriously up against a mystery religion here. You people do not engage in scientific discussions.
Again with this ridiculous analogy. It is mind-numbing in its stupidity. Folks, this is honestly how the evolutionist's mind operates. He believes time itself makes universal Fish-to-Man Evolution inevitable. This is mysticism on steroids.
Classic evolutionist elephant-hurl. Can't produce an argument so just vaguely refer to your legendary "mountains of evidence" that's hiding somewhere amidst the fog of wild claims and bald assertions.
You're not doing your cause much good with this.
If you have nothing to say then why respond?
I think it's worth pointing out that your posts say very little. Or rather they say quite a lot with no support beyond your rhetoric. Here for instance:If you have nothing to say then why respond?
-Fossils can be out of sequence, (as some are) and it is a "temporal paradox" of ancestors fossilizing after descendants.
-Molecular clock expectations can be way off, and it is simply a case of unexpected levels of conservation. (a molecular biologist actually stepped in this thread earlier and affirmed this character of evolution theory's uselessness)
-ERV's can be way off of assumptions and the problem can be pushed back to imaginary events occurring within imaginary common ancestors.
So the twin needs to be in earth's frame so he doesn't age slower????
Only when like you we ignore all of science.
No relativity 101 is that is clocks slow under acceleration.
The twin as he accelerates notices no change in his clock - yet he ages slower. Now you deny that very theory because you do not want to accept the reverse. That as things slow - time speeds up.
Just thought that drawing your attention to the fact that the tactics you are using have the end result of making your posts read like spoofs might be something for you to think about, but if you actually think it's impressing your own crowd then hey-ho, carry on.
Pure Darwinian mysticism.
Actually nested hierarchies are specifically indicitave of design.
The mere fact of having a discernable nested hierarchy requires that life be split into distinct types.
Evolution, this magical process you believe in
, if it was actually true, would produce extremely smooth gradations between all forms of life.
So just keep saying the mantra: "nested hierarchy" over and over again since it sounds technical and impressive.
You really have no idea what you're talking about. You don't understand your theory. You just chant phrases. "DNA! GENETICS! FOSSILS! ANATOMY!"
-Fossils can be out of sequence, (as some are) and it is a "temporal paradox" of ancestors fossilizing after descendants.
-Molecular clock expectations can be way off, and it is simply a case of unexpected levels of conservation. (a molecular biologist actually stepped in this thread earlier and affirmed this character of evolution theory's uselessness)
-ERV's can be way off of assumptions and the problem can be pushed back to imaginary events occurring within imaginary common ancestors.
Since you don't actually critically examine your theory, you don't understand this. Evolutionists just sit around and chant mantras. I am seriously up against a mystery religion here. You people do not engage in scientific discussions.
Again with this ridiculous analogy. It is mind-numbing in its stupidity.
Folks, this is honestly how the evolutionist's mind operates. He believes time itself makes universal Fish-to-Man Evolution inevitable. This is mysticism on steroids.
Classic evolutionist elephant-hurl. Can't produce an argument so just vaguely refer to your legendary "mountains of evidence" that's hiding somewhere amidst the fog of wild claims and bald assertions.
Actually nested hierarchies are specifically indicitave of design. The mere fact of having a discernable nested hierarchy requires that life be split into distinct types.
So just keep saying the mantra: "nested hierarchy" over and over again since it sounds technical and impressive.
...through inheritance of genetics. Through EXACTLY the process we know as biological reproduction.
The process of evolution can ONLY result in such a pattern. Any other pattern wouldn't fit into the idea of common ancestry with slow gradual change over generations, leading to diversity.
I have yet to see a creationist back this argument up. They like to trot this claim out, but they never try to support it.
Will you be any different? I will second DogmaHunter's challenge. Take a set of known designs and show how they fall into a nested hierarchy. You could use paintings by van Gogh, or Ford cars if you like. Show how human designs fall into a nested hierarchy as you claim they do.
You don't understand. Evolution predicts the origin of populations blended by so fine gradations of differences that it would be difficult if not impossible to discern a nested hierarchy between their traits.
Are you serious? Practically all designs falls into nested hierarchies. All traits of designs can be sorted by their most common shared trait groups to their most unique.
Evolution also predicts that barriers to genetic transfer between populations will cause the accumulation of different mutations in each population causing much greater divergence over time. This will produce distinctive characteristics in different populations.
This is one the most basic features of evolution, and yet you try to pretend that it makes the exact opposite predictions. That's not a very honest way to approach the subject.
Then do it. Show us how cars fall into a single, objective nested hierarchy.
The verb hayah means "to be" and its tense is context specific. This is the verb God speaks to Moses: "hayah asher hayah" translated as "I am that I am".
God is not saying "I will become what I will become", but is declaring that He is that He is.
Your idiosyncratic reading of the verb hayah in order to read backward into the text something that simply isn't there does by no means help you out here.
-CryptoLutheran
Yes Evolution can accommodate a nested hierarchy, but interestingly enough, Evolution would actually appear more convincing if the signal of a nested hierarchy was not recognizable due to such fine gradations of traits across at least a few major animal groups, or anatomical systems. Certainly only Evolution would predict such a gradiated pattern. Yet we never see this.
Meanwhile, as stated, nested hierarchies is a virtually universal quality of designed objects.
Ah, there you go. You remembered to call it a "single objective" nested hierarchy, yet another baseless mantra. Sorry but life does not fall into a "single objective" nested hierarchy. Phylogenetics, or the very methodology used to establish such hierarchies, is overflowing with assumptions and subjectivity in assessing character traits, the level of homoplasy, etc.
Even among evolutionists there is fundamental disagreement about which groups major taxa nest within. For example, whether birds nest within theropods or something entirely different.
"Feduccia is best known for his criticisms of the hypothesis, accepted by most paleontologists, that birds originated from and are deeply nested within Theropoda, and are therefore living theropod dinosaurs.
http://biblehub.com/strongs/hebrew/1961.htm
"become, altogether, accomplished, committed, like, break, cause,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am
The Hebrew "ehyeh" That you insist is "I am" is also translated "I will be" or "I shall be" - which is why accurately it is "I will be what I will be." Who are you to attempt to define Him?
"as is the case for its first occurrence, in Genesis 26:3"
So ehyeh is not even used to describe the creation at all. The word is hayah - to become or became depending on tense which is past tense in this verse.
Your putting words where words don't exist by any means whatsoever is not going to help you.
Feduccia has been shown to be wrong, and he refuses to accept it. Scientists who continue to push refuted phylogenies do not refute the evidenced phylogenies.
LOL. That's just it though. Feduccia can't be "proven wrong".
You are correct, I mistook hayah for ehyeh, ehyeh is the singular first person imperfect form of hayah.
That said, hayah is still the verb "to be", or rather "was" or "existed"; as such the translation the the earth was without form and void is accurate; a translation of "the earth became formless and void" is not accurate. The earth did not become this state, this was the state of the earth at the beginning of creation.
-CryptoLutheran
You don't understand. Evolution predicts the origin of populations blended by so fine gradations of differences that it would be difficult if not impossible to discern a nested hierarchy between their traits. Now of course most of these would go extinct, but isn't it amazing that between all of extant life and even the most plentiful 95+ % of the fossil record of marine invertebrates, life always and only can be detected by highly distinct types. Never any evidence of this trait gradation and blending that you predict would be happening constantly over geologic time. Almost as if universal common descent is not true at all. Think about it for a minute because I know your cult leaders never bring the matter to your attention.
You haven't shown that there should be fine gradations across major animal groups
Ah, there you go. You remembered to call it a "single objective" nested hierarchy, yet another baseless mantra. Sorry but life does not fall into a "single objective" nested hierarchy. Phylogenetics, or the very methodology used to establish such hierarchies, is overflowing with assumptions and subjectivity in assessing character traits, the level of homoplasy, etc. Even among evolutionists there is fundamental disagreement about which groups major taxa nest within. For example, whether birds nest within theropods or something entirely different.
Are you serious? Practically all designs falls into nested hierarchies. All traits of designs can be sorted by their most common shared trait groups to their most unique. Nested hierarchies are virtually inevitable. Of course an evolutionist would try and use something like this as their best evidence. It's exactly what you would expect from a pseudo-scientific theory that cannot persuade in any real or observable way. It's the same reason you guys use "Things change" and "That which survives, survives" as leading arguments. This is what we would expect from a wishy-washy creation ideology posing as theory.
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?