What proof would you need? (2)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Greg1234

In the beginning was El
May 14, 2010
3,745
38
✟11,792.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That's a laugh, debating a God or creation?? who ever said there was a God to debate? that's like saying,
'debating Santa and Christmas', it's meaningless, it's talking for the sake of talking.

If there were no first cause there would be no motion in the respective material bodies.
 
Upvote 0

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

Great link.

Here is the first rebuttal.

Argument:
Belief in a creation event lasting millions of years compromises the Gospel message
Response:

  1. This argument is tied directly to the issue of death and suffering before the fall of man. In other words, if there was death before Adam, then Jesus promise to restore all things to a pre-fall state, including no death, is an empty promise
    1. This arises from confusing spiritual death and physical death. Physical death is immaterial. Nothing, not even physical death, can separate us from God. However, spiritual death can separate you from God. It is the state of Adam, fellowshipping with God, prior to the fall, that Jesus will restore
    2. We will have no more physical death after our death here on earth. We will live eternally either in heaven or hell, therefore there is no need to "rescue" us from physical death
    3. The Garden of Eden was a separate, distinct location, which God created specifically for Adam, to give mankind a glimpse of paradise. Outside of the Garden, the conditions are unknown, and animal death was probably still occurring there.
    4. Jesus makes no statements that indicate old earth creationism would be compromising to the Gospel
    5. Death before sin compromises young earth creationism, but not the Gospel
This is fantastic in that it is doesn't refute anything I have said. Old earth or new earth is fine with me as neither view is oppositional to the bible. It appears the goose that posted this has quote mined Sarfarti out of context. Indeed there was no human death either physicall or spiritual before Adam. Surely you can find better than a quote mine from a crearionist. Can't you find anything from your own.

Sarfarti's book is the source of the reply. Sarfarti is of course a YEC himself with a PHD in chemistry.

The difference from either old or new earth creationist camps is that they stick to their assertions and do not change them in knee jerk fashion. In other words creationists actually have a theory rather than unstable evolutionists theory that is anything goes.

This is hillarious, Loudmouth. The best refute you can put up firstly does not interfere with my personal creationist belief. Secondly, an out of context quote mine likely Sarfarti's reframing and addressing old earthers arguments, is the best you can do. ^_^

You have yet to save your mate Dawkins from being outdated by saving Lucy's humanity from gorilladom.
 
Upvote 0

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If you were only listening the first time it wouldn't need to "play again"

So far no evolutionist has been able to provide a definition of a trasitional ape/human. I'd say that is an embarasment for you lot and a reflection of the nonsense that TOE is.

Now evolutionists are looking to creationists to provide one for you and that is hillarous. ^_^

Loudmouth flunked out with his mix of chimp and human traits. Perhaps you can do better.
 
Upvote 0

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
that website is absolutely horrendous. No wonder there are so many people with no idea what they are talking about if that's the type of rubbish you read.

after reading one page where it tried to claim that evolution attempts to explain the origin of life, atheism is a religion and that evolution and atheism are the same thing (they actually have nothing to do with each other) I gave up on it.
Evos separated abiogenesis from evolution to save themselves embarrassment. Indeed if the basis of your entire theory is an impossibility, then no wonder you lot do not want to engage in debate about it.
I feel sorry for you if you actually believe anything a site like that says.

Then you should have no trouble providing some algorithmical magic to refute it, instead of providing hot air and sarcasm as a response.

Atheism is a philosophy and you worship your evo researchers that have no idea what they are talking about. eg human feet on gorilla ancestors, the LUCA that never was, the human knuckle walking ancestors that never were.

You align with myths and worship myth builders and story tellers. I'd say that hits the mark for being a philosophy and religion as opposed to creationists that use the science of observation and theists in general that can see the evidence for Gods existence. eg living single celled factories do not poof into existence all by themselves out of dead elements.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Evos separated abiogenesis from evolution to save themselves embarrassment.


So you think babies come about through abiogenesis?

Then you should have no trouble providing some algorithmical magic to refute it, instead of providing hot air and sarcasm as a response.

Why don't you substantiate the claims made on the website first.

Atheism is a philosophy

No, it is a state of disbelief. If atheism is a philosophy then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

. . . and you worship your evo researchers that have no idea what they are talking about.

Have you heard of projection? You should look into it.

You align with myths and worship myth builders and story tellers.

You are projecting again.

Then you should have no trouble providing some algorithmical magic to refute it, instead of providing hot air and sarcasm as a response.

I'd say that hits the mark for being a philosophy and religion as opposed to creationists that use the science of observation and theists in general that can see the evidence for Gods existence.

And that science is . . . ?

eg living single celled factories do not poof into existence all by themselves out of dead elements.

It needs a supernatural deity to poof it into existence, right? That is what you believe, isn't it? You accuse others of believing in myths and stories, but yet that is exactly what you believe in.
 
Upvote 0
F

Fastener

Guest
So far no evolutionist has been able to provide a definition of a trasitional ape/human. I'd say that is an embarasment for you lot and a reflection of the nonsense that TOE is.
You are so right and I am so very embarrassed, so embarrassed in fact that I am seriously thinking of becoming a creationist, please tell me again what the good parts of creationism are? things like, what good does creationism do? where can I find the evidence that creationists use in order to believe in creationism? how much does it cost?
do I need to buy a trailer home and live in a trailer park or can I just fit wheels to the side of my house?
how much of my brain will I need to have removed or can I just take drugs?

So far nowhere on this creationists site have I seen how I would become a creationist, don't they want converts or are they not geared up to take converts because it just never happens? :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
So far no evolutionist has been able to provide a definition of a trasitional ape/human.

That is completely untrue. I supplied you with a definition yesterday. Here it is again:

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a lifeform that exhibits characteristics of two distinct taxonomic groups. A transitional fossil is the fossil of an organism near the branching point where major individual lineages (clades) diverge. It will have characteristics typical of organisms on both sides of the split, but because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close it is to the actual point of divergence."
Transitional fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This would apply to the ratio between arm and leg length, pelvis, brain size, prognathus, and several other features.

So what features must a transitional fossil have, in your opinion? Or are you going to duck this challenge once again?

Now evolutionists are looking to creationists to provide one for you and that is hillarous. ^_^

So how can you claim that fossils are not transitional without having a definition of what is transitional? Talk about hilarious.

Loudmouth flunked out with his mix of chimp and human traits.

I thought you said no one had given you a definition? Now you just ignore them? How hilarious.
 
Upvote 0

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Actually all you evos, Loudmouth was silly enough to mention chimp characteristics in his intial reply. This was a very silly thing to do. Loudmouth also woffled on for weeks about the chimp-like connection to his embarassment, because even I know better than that.

Now let's look at this flavour of the month invented of course after you lot realized that chimp-like is falsified and not the way to go. Evos had to invent a brand new story recently that falsified 150 years of evolutionary history to yet again invent another myth to save the day...

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a lifeform that exhibits characteristics of two distinct taxonomic groups. A transitional fossil is the fossil of an organism near the branching point where major individual lineages (clades) diverge. It will have characteristics typical of organisms on both sides of the split, but because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close it is to the actual point of divergence."

Now what are these traits that are relating to humanity?

You know that bipedalism was first displayed in non human apes eg Lucy. Reduced facial features were demonstated in Lluc 12mya, and most importantly mankind has much more in common with an orang than a chimp.

Then of course there is brain size and I have already spoken to with Turkana Boy having no bigger cranial capacity than an ape like Rudolfensis that has a brain capacity of 525cc and does not observe nor address the variation between species.

Then of course there is my point that erectus and Turk were too stupid to light and control fire and is a short waddler anyway about to undergo a pelvic reconstruction. Erectus is also too stupid to raise large brained dependent babies.

Of course using your own psuedo science against you is necessary to demonstrate that evolutionists have lost the science of observation and replaced it with story telling and algorithmic magic.

Additionally Loudmouth can finally give his ideas on Turks whackey pelvis and defend it as a single individual.

Additionally researchers can reconstruct shattered fragments to reflect anything they want eg Turks pelvis, and Rudolfensis' initial Leakey flat face, morphing into an ape head after Leakey was shown to have produced a biased reconstruction.

Then let's not forget the 'human' fossils that turned out to be an ornagutan and a pig. The fact is that evolutionists would not know what a human trait looks like anymore yet they base a definition on a mix of human traits.

The overarching theme I am presenting is that all evidence for human ancestry is based on myth, inconsistency and non plausibility. :thumbsup:

Go!........
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You are so right and I am so very embarrassed, so embarrassed in fact that I am seriously thinking of becoming a creationist, please tell me again what the good parts of creationism are? things like, what good does creationism do? where can I find the evidence that creationists use in order to believe in creationism? how much does it cost?
do I need to buy a trailer home and live in a trailer park or can I just fit wheels to the side of my house?
how much of my brain will I need to have removed or can I just take drugs?

So far nowhere on this creationists site have I seen how I would become a creationist, don't they want converts or are they not geared up to take converts because it just never happens? :thumbsup:

As you may have picked up I do not align with any particular faith.

According to me, you do not have to be a creationist to be saved. Hence you do not need to move to a trailer park you will be pleased to know. God understands how the reasonings and assumptions of mankind warp the mind.

However you may like to engage the reasoning ability God gave you and acknowledge that after 150 years of falsifications and continual change and contradiction that evolutionary underlying assumptions cannot possibly be right.
 
Upvote 0
F

Fastener

Guest
However you may like to engage the reasoning ability God gave you and acknowledge that after 150 years of falsifications and continual change and contradiction that evolutionary underlying assumptions cannot possibly be right.
I understand and of course you are right they can't possibly be right, in defense of science however, when new facts come to light what would you have scientists do ignore those facts? if you came up with a brand new type of microscope that magnified a hundred times better than the microscopes we have now what should we do with the new evidence we get from it? ignore that evidence?

When the calculator was invented people were doing math just because they were curious about the answers,
the calculator could do in ten button presses what would have taken ten people working for a week to accomplish.

What do you suggest we do with all of the new information we are getting from the Hubble telescope ignore it?
as time moves on so does the amount of information we accumulate our knowledge base increases ten fold with every generation.
The more we know the more we are able to know, would you have us stop finding things out?
 
Upvote 0

Mikecpking

Senior Member
Aug 29, 2005
2,389
69
59
Telford,Shropshire,England
Visit site
✟18,099.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
As you may have picked up I do not align with any particular faith.

According to me, you do not have to be a creationist to be saved. Hence you do not need to move to a trailer park you will be pleased to know. God understands how the reasonings and assumptions of mankind warp the mind.

However you may like to engage the reasoning ability God gave you and acknowledge that after 150 years of falsifications and continual change and contradiction that evolutionary underlying assumptions cannot possibly be right.

Even though the fossil record shows changes in the type of life forms over millions of years..

I used to be a creationist once, then studied geology and saw the truth.
 
Upvote 0

Mikecpking

Senior Member
Aug 29, 2005
2,389
69
59
Telford,Shropshire,England
Visit site
✟18,099.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
As you may have picked up I do not align with any particular faith.

According to me, you do not have to be a creationist to be saved. Hence you do not need to move to a trailer park you will be pleased to know. God understands how the reasonings and assumptions of mankind warp the mind.

However you may like to engage the reasoning ability God gave you and acknowledge that after 150 years of falsifications and continual change and contradiction that evolutionary underlying assumptions cannot possibly be right.


This is a good page for you. Pull the bones out of this site:

What is the evidence for evolution?
 
Upvote 0

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
[/color]

So you think babies come about through abiogenesis?

If you want me to be civil stop being a S.A.

Why don't you substantiate the claims made on the website first.

I will ...they are all rubbish. Why don't you present something other than some loosers desperate attempt to quote mine a YEC.

No, it is a state of disbelief. If atheism is a philosophy then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Atheism is a philosophy. It is borne of "Drink and be merrry for tomorow you may die"...with nothing else to worry about. Atheism is an excuse to do as you wish with no more than secular authority to answer to.

Although I believe atheists will be in line for a resurrection of judgement and an opportunity to redeem themselves those that die in the Lord will fair better and be granted eternal life at physical death. These will not recieve a resurrection of judgement by will recieve a resurrection of life.


Have you heard of projection? You should look into it.

Don't play around with psychology. That is my field of expertise. I am thinking of presenting a thesis on why atheists haunt Christian threads.

You are projecting again.

No I am not actually. You are old enough to have worshiped the evo researchers that woffled on about human knucklewalking ancestry. Defend your researchers as much as you wish and you will never take away the fact that all their supposed evidence was no more than a delusion



And that science is . . . ?

The irreduceable complexity of a living cell and the evo fabrication of a 'primitive cell' which is a contradiction in terms much like saying primitive factory..no such thing.

And of course already presented research on earth centred universe.

It needs a supernatural deity to poof it into existence, right? That is what you believe, isn't it? You accuse others of believing in myths and stories, but yet that is exactly what you believe in.

No I can provide plausible scenarios to back my position rather than human feet on gorillas and make believe primitive cells.


Evolutionists believe dead elements created themselves into a living factory of complexity. I believe an almighty creator created the various kinds fully formed and functioning.

Your theory is implausibe at its inception. My theory is plausible in that every organism is no more than rearranged earthly elements right down to the cognitive imprinting of information and mind. These being charged with the force of life the one thing that mankind is incapable of recreating and replicating.

Another way of looking at plausibility is the ridiculousness of expecting amino acids to form a fully functioning and complex organism capable of entropy and reproduction of some kind. Yet if there is a God it is very plausible that he has the knowledge to create a being that is no more than rearranged dust.

I give power to an almighty God. You give power to lifeless elements. Of the two, mine appears to be the more plausible.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is a good page for you. Pull the bones out of this site:

What is the evidence for evolution?


I have pulled the bones out off all the silly assertions your link speaks to already, including the rubbish and misrepresentation of the fossil record down to the silly multiple dimensions, dark mattrer and energy and the singularity that makes no sense. Don't just drop in and think that anything you put up is going to be new, sweety. Your cohorts have been at it for months with me and all this simplistic stuff has been spoken to already.

You pull the bones out of these links

An earth centred universe

Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe « Thoughts En Route

Evidence for a young earth

Biblical Young Earth Creationism
Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed - Answers in Genesis


Errors in evolutionary thinking.
Errors in Evolutionary Thinking

Of course you will need more than the proffering of maybe's likely's and perhapses and possibly's, which are the basis of any refute you could possibly offer and no more substantiated than the evidence above.

So stop manking out naturalists have any upper hand here because I can assure you that they do not.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟28,402.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have pulled the bones out off all the silly assertions your link speaks to already, including the rubbish and misrepresentation of the fossil record down to the silly multiple dimensions, dark mattrer and energy and the singularity that makes no sense. Don't just drop in and think that anything you put up is going to be new, sweety. Your cohorts have been at it for months with me and all this simplistic stuff has been spoken to already.

You pull the bones out of these links

An earth centred universe

Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe « Thoughts En Route

Evidence for a young earth

Biblical Young Earth Creationism
Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed - Answers in Genesis


Errors in evolutionary thinking.
Errors in Evolutionary Thinking

Of course you will need more than the proffering of maybe's likely's and perhapses and possibly's, which are the basis of any refute you could possibly offer and no more substantiated than the evidence above.

So stop manking out naturalists have any upper hand here because I can assure you that they do not.

More lies copied and pasted from creationist websites, amazing.
 
Upvote 0

Keachian

On Sabbatical
Feb 3, 2010
7,096
330
34
Horse-lie-down
Visit site
✟16,342.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
When you not only post your ineptitute, but bold it, I wonder not only how you can expect others to take you seriously, but how you even take yourself seriously.

Great link.

Here is the first rebuttal.

Argument:
Belief in a creation event lasting millions of years compromises the Gospel message
Response:

  1. This argument is tied directly to the issue of death and suffering before the fall of man. In other words, if there was death before Adam, then Jesus promise to restore all things to a pre-fall state, including no death, is an empty promise
    1. This arises from confusing spiritual death and physical death. Physical death is immaterial. Nothing, not even physical death, can separate us from God. However, spiritual death can separate you from God. It is the state of Adam, fellowshipping with God, prior to the fall, that Jesus will restore
    2. We will have no more physical death after our death here on earth. We will live eternally either in heaven or hell, therefore there is no need to "rescue" us from physical death
    3. The Garden of Eden was a separate, distinct location, which God created specifically for Adam, to give mankind a glimpse of paradise. Outside of the Garden, the conditions are unknown, and animal death was probably still occurring there.
    4. Jesus makes no statements that indicate old earth creationism would be compromising to the Gospel
    5. Death before sin compromises young earth creationism, but not the Gospel
This is fantastic in that it is doesn't refute anything I have said. Old earth or new earth is fine with me as neither view is oppositional to the bible. It appears the goose that posted this has quote mined Sarfarti out of context. Indeed there was no human death either physicall or spiritual before Adam. Surely you can find better than a quote mine from a crearionist. Can't you find anything from your own.

Sarfarti's book is the source of the reply. Sarfarti is of course a YEC himself with a PHD in chemistry.

The difference from either old or new earth creationist camps is that they stick to their assertions and do not change them in knee jerk fashion. In other words creationists actually have a theory rather than unstable evolutionists theory that is anything goes.

This is hillarious, Loudmouth. The best refute you can put up firstly does not interfere with my personal creationist belief. Secondly, an out of context quote mine likely Sarfarti's reframing and addressing old earthers arguments, is the best you can do. ^_^

Wow. Just wow. First off, you can't even keep track of who you're replying to (hint - I'm not Loudmouth). Second, your hubris again makes a fool of you. For all your talk about the reading comprehension of others, you made a severe error yourself. Here's the link to the page in question.
Young Earth Creation Science Argument Index, Millions of Years, Compromise

Here's the quote:
Argument:

Belief in a creation event lasting millions of years compromises the Gospel message

And here's the important part Astrid:
"Source: Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise"

That means, since you clearly don't understand how citations and sourcing works, that the quote in the arument is from Sarfati's "Refuting Compromise" not the response!

Finally, if you'd clicked on the link below the response, it would have taken you to the actual sources of the response (an entire page of linked essays).
Death Before Sin

You have yet to save your mate Dawkins from being outdated by saving Lucy's humanity from gorilladom.

How would you know? There is zero evidence you've read any of his work, much less The Ancestor's Tale - though you did quote that lying Wiki entry 5 times. And you have shown nothing demonstrating Au. afarensis to be a gorilla, save your own ignorance of the subject.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
More lies copied and pasted from creationist websites, amazing.

The mathematician link to an earth centred universe is speaking to published research and not from a creationist. This theory does not require the mystic dark energy and matter. You have already previously demonstrated you cannot tell the difference between these sites. All you can say is 'lies' and post pictures and links you are unable to articulate a response to nor understand.

Refute earth centred shock wave theory why don't you, by pasting up the big bang mess and its' multiple dimensions and mysterious dark energy scientists know nothing about, then pretend anything you have to offer is any better.

More importantly, any evidence I produce from any creationist site can be no worse than yours.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.