- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,210
- 52,660
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Like --- for instance:
- spontaneous generation
- phlogiston
- aether
- alchemy
- Pluto
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.
And this is what creationists want - a discussion that uses words that are undefined and cannot be defined. They bring up ideas and change the goal posts. How insincere and dishonest can you get.
No.Like --- for instance:
Those sorts of things?
- spontaneous generation
- phlogiston
- aether
- alchemy
- Pluto
Creationists understand that many different areas of science have been influenced to agree with evolution. It will take time to unravel what has been manipulated and accepted as likely for 150 years. A structure must be torn down before a new one maybe built in its place. Remodeling or an addition will not be sufficient. A totally new approach needs to be established in order for creationism to be viewed in a different light. This take time and research without preconceived evolutionary thought bias.Creationists are ignorant and don't understand that the complex methodology's behind science. they think you can just make junk up, because they have been doing it for quite a while.
Creationists, you will never win against evolution because they don't understand it. To defeat your enemy you must know them better then they know themselves.
its not even like this is a science forum. this is a Christian forum. One would think here of all places, creationists could thrive. Its just sad. pathetically sad, how they cant even answer their definitions to words they themselves make up. This is why you lost at dover creationists. because you have nothing in the way of science. nothing.
And there you demonstrate that no, creationists do not understand.Creationists understand that many different areas of science have been influenced to agree with evolution.
I wonder what they'd call it? Obviously not science.It will take time to unravel what has been manipulated and accepted as likely for 150 years. A structure must be torn down before a new one maybe built in its place. Remodeling or an addition will not be sufficient. A totally new approach needs to be established in order for creationism to be viewed in a different light.
Fortunately, actual scientists will prevent such idiocy from ever happening.This take time and research without preconceived evolutionary thought bias.
ALL birds cannot be the same kind, because even Noah sent out first a Raven and then a Dove. Clearly, he didn't see them as the same kind.Doesn't seem like we missed anything. Calling "Kind" a "type" is hardly helpful. Also, can you tell us why we cannot or should not claim all birds are one "Kind?"
Like --- for instance:
Those sorts of things?
- spontaneous generation
- phlogiston
- aether
- alchemy
- Pluto
That will be to his (the devout evolutionist scientist) loss, and not to the Creation scientist or at least those who have not become steadfast in their pursuits and opinions to not review and reconsider "uniformitarian" preconceptions....And there you demonstrate that no, creationists do not understand.
Many areas of science have not been 'influenced' to agree with evolution. It has been discovered that many areas of science are in accord with evolution. Big difference.
I wonder what they'd call it? Obviously not science.
Fortunately, actual scientists will prevent such idiocy from ever happening.
That will be to his (the devout evolutionist scientist) loss, and not to the Creation scientist or at least those who have not become steadfast in their pursuits and opinions to not review and reconsider "uniformitarian" preconceptions....
The only "uniformitarism" in science is the uniformity of physical law a postulate well supported by data. This "unifomitarianism" nonsense from YECs is just a desperate attempt to cover up the fact that Young Earth Creationism with its recent creation and even more recent global flood can't begin to explain the physical universe and the earth's geology, paleontology, biodiversity, archeology and biogeography. All they can do is invoke some vague form of "catastrophism" that doesn't actually explain anything and totally falls apart when challenged with any detailed data.Indeed --- uniformitarians consistently paint themselves into a corner --- then expect us Christians to bail them out.
Disproved by scientists without using the Bible.Like --- for instance:
- spontaneous generation
Disproved by scientists without using the Bible.phlogiston
Disproved by scientists without using the Bible.aether
Disproved by scientists without using the Bible.alchemy
You know, even if you were about 14, this behaviour would be considered infantile and deliberately provocative. Since you are, in fact, fifty-three years old and still refuse to retract your most blatant mistakes, even after several people pointed them out to you and explained them in, shall I say, layman's terms, I am beginning to speculate about your state of mind.Pluto
Those sorts of things?
Why is it nothing you say makes any sense? You only oppose uniformitarianism because you've painted yourselves into a corner and need some way to dismiss all the evidence against your young earth nonsense.Indeed --- uniformitarians consistently paint themselves into a corner --- then expect us Christians to bail them out.
Define 'kind'Like --- for instance:
Those sorts of things?
- spontaneous generation
- phlogiston
- aether
- alchemy
- Pluto
When you consider Leviticus it really gets confusing.Define 'kind'
The science of Math does not agree with evolution. Scientific observations of life today does not support all life originating with the same ancestors, as it cannot even demonstrate un-natural selection creating a new specie ---- but only variety trait specific breeding..And there you demonstrate that no, creationists do not understand.
Many areas of science have not been 'influenced' to agree with evolution. It has been discovered that many areas of science are in accord with evolution. Big difference.
I wonder what they'd call it? Obviously not science.
Fortunately, actual scientists will prevent such idiocy from ever happening.
Math is not exactly a science and it only disagree with evolution in the minds of creationists, but please since you brought up math, do give us a mathematically rigorous definition of "Kind".The science of Math does not agree with evolution. Scientific observations of life today does not support all life originating with the same ancestors, as it cannot even demonstrate un-natural selection creating a new specie ---- but only variety trait specific breeding..
Like --- for instance:
- spontaneous generation
Disproved by scientists without using the Bible.
Disproved.Like --- for instance:
spontaneous generation
disproved by scientific methodlogy.phlogiston
Talk to RichardT about that one.aether
creationist-style pseudoscience.alchemy
Redefined, largely (I think) because some scientists didn't want to admit another similar planet named Xena or its moon, Gabrielle.Pluto
No, none of that fits what Molal was talking about. He meant how creationists habitually use meaningless undefined nonsense words they made up themselves; words like "kind", "genetic information", "devolution", "baramins", and "mega-evolution".Those sorts of things?
It does get confusing for creationists.When you consider Leviticus it really gets confusing.
11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
It looks like the locust and the grasshopper are being defined as separate kinds but locusts are the swarming phase of short horned grasshoppers and thus locusts are grasshoppers that are transformed under population pressure. So just what is the definition of Kind?
Like --- for instance:
Those sorts of things?
- spontaneous generation
- phlogiston
- aether
- alchemy
- Pluto
What is a "Kind."Disproven by Scripture first:
[bible]Genesis 1:26[/bible]
Why was it even researched and taught in the first place?
IOW --- you scientots make stuff up (based on "evidence", of course) --- then disprove it yourselves.
Like a self-promoting security guard who is always starting fires, then "discovering fires" and putting them out.
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?