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.
I talk to Him in prayer; He talks to me through His word.I highly doubt god talks to you.
This sounds to me like you're getting your information from the Internet, not from the Bible.Please, the Bible says to kill unruly children, kill homosexuals, women to be silent in church, how much to pay for a slave, a rapist marries the women he raped...ETC ETC.
Someone needs to take a glance in the mirror, doesn't he?I swear your ignorance angers me...Sorry, my point of view.
Offering to do something and declining to do it are not the same thing.There is no actual science in evolutionism - that's why the meaning of the term's been under attack for so long.
What I can do, is take any evostory - any - and find and explain the trick behind the falsehoods. This is not a matter of intelligence, but integrity and sometimes patience. ANYONE can do it.
Evolutionism is spam. How many lies have each and every one of us witnessed? There is no need to dig through the entire pile. If even one story had merit, there'd be no need for the rest.
Rather than talking trash, you're welcome to name your favorite evostory. Odds are it's already been shot down, but if it hasn't, so what? You and I both know there's nothing which withstands scrutiny in your religion.
Yet CTD declined to provide a demonstration of this possibility, as asked for in the post he was replying to.
Go figure.
That's all fine and dandy, if evolution is fundamentally impossible. You've yet to demonstrate that it is, despite repeated requests from myself and others to do so. If you think it's physically impossible for all life on Earth to have been descended from a single common ancestor that lived 13.5 billion years ago, then prove it.There is something a lot of folks don't fully grasp: it is impossible in principle for reality to contradict itself. Evolutionism cannot be true, and therefore no evidence, honestly interpreted, can exist which would compel one to believe it true. We needn't address hundreds of thousands of old lies; we needn't be afraid of any new lies which might be composed, new evidence which might be discovered. In principle, all actual evidence must be compatible and reconcilable with the actual events of the past. Period. No exceptions.
Oh you don't dictate the game.That's all fine and dandy, if evolution is fundamentally impossible. You've yet to demonstrate that it is, despite repeated requests from myself and others to do so. If you think it's physically impossible for all life on Earth to have been descended from a single common ancestor that lived 13.5 billion years ago, then prove it.
Or, to use the vernacular, put up or shut up.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you confusing me with someone else? You mentioned something similar to Shemjaza in post #68, but this is the first post addressed to me. I had no idea what you were asking him them, and I have no idea what you're asking me now. "You had the opportunity to choose an evostory - any evostory - out of the whole mountain of spam" - what on Earth does that mean?Oh you don't dictate the game.
...And now you're lost.
Fair play dictates the rules. You had the opportunity to choose an evostory - any evostory - out of the whole mountain of spam. Everyone saw.
You think by declining, you win? No!
No one said anything of the sortFair is fair. It's silly to say the side which intentionally forfeits wins.
Right, so, by "pick an evostory", you could have said "pick something in biology which is allegedly explained by evolution", or something equally unambiguous. It'd save a lot of confusion if you used standard scientific terminology, instead of making up inflammatory slurs. If you're not going to be civil, you can leave.Since you declined to pick, I get to pick. Fair and Square.
I choose the "male nipple" evostory. Evoland myth says the nipple of the male is "vestigial." It isn't.
No, they don't just get to say things. 'Vestigial' refers to useless organs which formerly had a use. They've had to backtrack quite a bit, and some of them know to say it also refers to organs which are "less functional" even if they're not totally useless. Most everything they claimed was useless has turned out to serve a purpose. Lists are easily found.
But under neither definition can they stuff the male nipple. By their own telling of the tale, it never had a purpose to begin with! By their own self-contradictory story, it's out.
Err, right... except, you made the claim that evolution is fundamentally, physically impossible - not just unsubstantiated by the evidence, but unsubstantiatable. Not just devoid of evidence, but impossible to ever be evidenced. This is quite the claim, and you've yet to back it up. If you want to discuss various topics within evolution (such as nipples on men), fine, we can do that - but the fact remains that you've asserted that it is mathematically impossible for evolution to be even remotely possible, a claim you've yet to back up.Game Over
"I have no idea what you're talking about."Now, let's hear your explanation for why the male nipple isn't vestigial.
QV please:That's all fine and dandy, if evolution is fundamentally impossible. You've yet to demonstrate that it is, despite repeated requests from myself and others to do so. If you think it's physically impossible for all life on Earth to have been descended from a single common ancestor that lived 13.5 billion years ago, then prove it.
Or, to use the vernacular, put up or shut up.
SOURCEEvolutionist Harold Morowitz estimated the probability for chance formation of even the simplest form of living organism at 1/10[sup]340,000,000[/sup]. By comparison only 10[sup]20[/sup] grains of sand could fit within a cubic mile and 10 billion times more (10[sup]30[/sup]) would fit inside the entire earth. So, the probability of forming a simple cell by chance processes is infinitely less likely than having a blind person select one specifically marked grain of sand out of an entire earth filled with sand.
I suggest a review. If there was a question about my meaning, why was it not asked? Oh there were posts. Two parties falsely accused me of dodging / being afraid - after I issued the challenge."You had the opportunity to choose an evostory - any evostory - out of the whole mountain of spam" - what on Earth does that mean?
"Put up or shut up" - after he knows I'd done already put up.That's all fine and dandy, if evolution is fundamentally impossible. You've yet to demonstrate that it is, despite repeated requests from myself and others to do so. If you think it's physically impossible for all life on Earth to have been descended from a single common ancestor that lived 13.5 billion years ago, then prove it.
Or, to use the vernacular, put up or shut up.
Not only was he responding to that post, he took the time to delete the portion quoted directly above. One does not delete that which one does not see.Offering to do something and declining to do it are not the same thing.
As everyone witnesses, no Evolander has accepted my offer.
Do not think me bold. I've examined thousands of evostories; I have most likely seen anything the local crew might parrot.
I interpret your post as disingenuous. You may convince me otherwise, of course, by means of consistent behaviour.CTD,
Please, deign to teach us that which you think you know of evolution. you may find that you are mistaken..
Gradual change over time ? Crazy!
A guy with a beard in the sky who does everything by magic. He created the entire universe but needs your praise. will send you to burn in hell if you are "bad" but remember he loves you? that's an idea i can get behind
QV please:
SOURCE
As I have said before, when it comes to evolution, evolutionists like to skip over 9 billion years of non-biological evolution and jump right to life -- up and running like clockwork.What does the chance of an organism randomly putting itself together in a single event have to do with evolution?
You know, I don't even remember putting CTD on ignore. Now I am reminded, at least, why I did so! LOL
I do want to address one point about vestigial structures that is so often misrepresented by creationists. That they used to be seen as completetly functionless, and now "evolutionists" have back-tracked and say they can have a different function from the main original one. This is creationist propaganda. They have always been defined they way they are now. To prove this, I will quote from Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, chapter 13. The Origin of Species: Chapter 13
"Organs or parts in this strange condition, bearing the stamp of inutility, are extremely common throughout nature. For instance, rudimentary mammae are very general in the males of mammals: I presume that the `bastard-wing' in birds may be safely considered as a digit in a rudimentary state: in very many snakes one lobe of the lungs is rudimentary; in other snakes there are rudiments of the pelvis and hind limbs. Some of the cases of rudimentary organs are extremely curious; for instance, the presence of teeth in foetal whales, which when grown up have not a tooth in their heads; and the presence of teeth, which never cut through the gums, in the upper jaws of our unborn calves. It has even been stated on good authority that rudiments of teeth can be detected in the beaks of certain embryonic birds. Nothing can be plainer than that wings are formed for flight, yet in how many insects do we see wings so reduced in size as to be utterly incapable of flight, and not rarely lying under wing-cases, firmly soldered together!
The meaning of rudimentary organs is often quite unmistakeable: for instance there are beetles of the same genus (and even of the same species) resembling each other most closely in all respects, one of which will have full-sized wings, and another mere rudiments of membrane; and here it is impossible to doubt, that the rudiments represent wings. Rudimentary organs sometimes retain their potentiality, and are merely not developed: this seems to be the case with the mammae of male mammals, for many instances are on record of these organs having become well developed in full-grown males, and having secreted milk. So again there are normally four developed and two rudimentary teats in the udders of the genus Bos, but in our domestic cows the two sometimes become developed and give milk. In individual plants of the same species the petals sometimes occur as mere rudiments, and sometimes in a well-developed state. In plants with separated sexes, the male flowers often have a rudiment of a pistil; and Kölreuter found that by crossing such male plants with an hermaphrodite species, the rudiment of the pistil in the hybrid offspring was much increased in size; and this shows that the rudiment and the perfect pistil are essentially alike in nature.
An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other. Thus in plants, the office of the pistil is to allow the pollen-tubes to reach the ovules protected in the ovarium at its base. The pistil consists of a stigma supported on the style; but in some Compositae, the male florets, which of course cannot be fecundated, have a pistil, which is in a rudimentary state, for it is not crowned with a stigma; but the style remains well developed, and is clothed with hairs as in other compositae, for the purpose of brushing the pollen out of the surrounding anthers. Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object: in certain fish the swim-bladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent breathing organ or lung. Other similar instances could be given."
Emphasis mine. Keep in mind, this was published in 1859!
So even the separate term 'rudimentary' was not consistent over time in Darwinspeak. History tells us quite clearly what Evolanders chose to publish in textbooks, insisting the falsehoods be retained even decades after they were falsified beyond dispute.Finally, as rudimentary organs, by whatever steps they may have been degraded into their present useless condition, are the record of a former state of things, and have been retained solely through the power of inheritance--we can understand, on the genealogical view of classification, how it is that systematists, in placing organisms in their proper places in the natural system, have often found rudimentary parts as useful as, or even sometimes more useful than, parts of high physiological importance.
Link:There remains, however, this difficulty. After an organ has ceased being used, and has become in consequence much reduced, how can it be still further reduced in size until the merest vestige is left; and how can it be finally quite obliterated? It is scarcely possible that disuse can go on producing any further effect after the organ has once been rendered functionless. Some additional explanation is here requisite which I cannot give.
I was just about to close the tab, when I spotted this. Same chapter I linked to before.Darwin said:Useful organs, however little they may be developed, unless we have reason to suppose that they were formerly more highly developed, ought not to be considered as rudimentary.
But if I question a scientific theory or concept, my criticism is often met with resistance.
This resistance to consider criticism is exactly what indoctrination is.
I welcome Biblical critism. It's what caused me to be a believer. So I became a believer as a result of critical analysis of scripture. (It's what my church did all the time.) So if others are "indoctrinated", I have no problem with that. As long as they learn the truth, I don't mind what road they take.
I believe what the Bible says because it's the best choice. I don't want to accept that Jesus walked on water, but the parts I do want to embrace are important enough that they would loose a lot if I toss out the odd bits.
And that philosophy has gotten me quite far. Once I started trusting God, He has opened up endless doors.
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?