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.
Young Earth Creation Science Argument Index
OEC rebuttals to all YEC claims.
If you were only listening the first time it wouldn't need to "play again"
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.
Evos separated abiogenesis from evolution to save themselves embarrassment.
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.
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.
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?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.
So far no evolutionist has been able to provide a definition of a trasitional ape/human.
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.
It's far from being hilarious, her level of indoctrination is disgusting and demeaning for her and it's child abuse.I thought you said no one had given you a definition? Now you just ignore them? How hilarious.
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?
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?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.
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.
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.
[/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.
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.
An earth centred universe
Mathematicians theory means Earth may be the center of the universe « Thoughts En Route
Great link.
Here is the first rebuttal.
Argument:
Belief in a creation event lasting millions of years compromises the Gospel messageResponse:
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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- Jesus makes no statements that indicate old earth creationism would be compromising to the Gospel
- Death before sin compromises young earth creationism, but not the Gospel
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.
More lies copied and pasted from creationist websites, amazing.
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?