What proof would you need?

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Forget it -- you need to walk by faith, not sight, to see that kind of evidence.

IOW: In order to believe whatever you want, you need to ignore the evidence entirely.

 

[Loudmouth]

Forget it -- you need to walk by faith, not sight, to see that kind of evidence.

Faith is a belief held in the absence of evidence. You can not use faith to see evidence. If you have to believe that something is true before you believe that it is true then you are not describing evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you have to believe that something is true before you believe that it is true then you are not describing evidence.

Then why do you need to see it?

Now we need to see the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then why do you need to see it?

I need positive evidence in order to accept positive claims. I'm kind of funny that way. Take a look at the title of the thread.

 

[CTD]

Again, you are all bluster. You still have not addressed the ERV evidence that I posted earlier. All you can do is mock science. You refuse to engage it.

Antihistory.

I addressed the entire argument-from-spam, all of it. Anyone may review and see - no need to take my word or yours.

Game's over. Evolutionism lost, fair and square. I don't want to hear about "we could've won if we'd played ERV's". You didn't. You lost.

Oops - on second thought, you're welcome to continue whining about your defeat.

 

[CTD]

Then why do you need to see it?

Bingo! By rights they could accept the truth just as easily as they accept evolutionism. They have no business demanding evidence.

I think it's safe to say one forfeits the right to speak of evidence when one converts to evolutionism.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think it's safe to say one forfeits the right to speak of evidence when one converts to evolutionism.

I think most evolutionists don't have a clue as to what they're getting into when they choose evolution over creation.

As Mr. Hovind points out, they automatically gloss over billions of years of non-biological evolution and like to talk about evolution after abiogenesis, but not before it.

Then they call what they believe "science" and what we believe "religion" and expect us to play along.

 

[Split Rock]

I think most evolutionists don't have a clue as to what they're getting into when they choose evolution over creation.

As Mr. Hovind points out, they automatically gloss over billions of years of non-biological evolution and like to talk about evolution after abiogenesis, but not before it.

Then they call what they believe "science" and what we believe "religion" and expect us to play along.

And you have yet to explain why you think this argument makes any sense whatsoever. Really. But let me ask you this: If I believed that fairies were responsible for everything from the evolution of man to the origin of the universe, would that make my belief more scientific and less religious?

 

[Davian]

Do any of you guys know what the Great Commission is, and where my obligation to it stops?

It says "go & teach" -- the effectiveness comes from the Holy Spirit.

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

1 Corinthians 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
1 Corinthians 3:8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

So, the 'Great Commission' is... spam? You just send it out, and your obligation stops there?

 

[LowLight]

Antihistory.

But no, rather than accept the challenge, he chose to talk trash, as if Loudmouth were the one forfeiting, the one unable to substantiate his claims.

I addressed the entire argument-from-spam, all of it. Anyone may review and see - no need to take my word or yours.

Cool. By judging this discussion on its merits, Loudmouth triumphed because you refused to play ball.

Game's over. Evolutionism lost, fair and square. I don't want to hear about "we could've won if we'd played ERV's". You didn't. You lost.

You think by declining, you win? No! Fair is fair. It's silly to say the side that intentionally forfeits wins.

Oops - on second thought, you're welcome to continue whining about your defeat.

In an actual court, like say, Kitzmiller v. Dover, your argument would last about 5 minutes before being shredded.

 

[CTD]

In an actual court, like say, Kitzmiller v. Dover, your argument would last about 5 minutes before being shredded.

Actual courts, if/when we see them, shall be presided over by men who understand their position as servants of the people rather than overlords. They shall also understand the role of good faith in maintaining their own legitimacy.

BY LAW. Anyone can look it up.

 

[CTD]

... your argument would last about 5 minutes before being shredded.

Do tell...

So something's different here, huh?

Trash talk

"If we'd played ERV's or if we were somewhere else we could win. We lost but just Darwin anyhow cause you know we could've won. Our assertions prove we could"

 

[razeontherock]

For Creationists, it could be a giraffe giving birth to a walrus.

Sounds painful; for the love of all that is Holy, we apparently don't want anything happening that would change creationist's minds

 

[CTD]

< staff edit >

What's the number one lie in the whole pile? "God didn't create as He says He did." You don't get to keep that one. If it was the strongest, you should've played it when you had the chance.

 

[jay1]

What's the number one lie in the whole pile? "God didn't create as He says He did." You don't get to keep that one. If it was the strongest, you should've played it when you had the chance.

Sorry, but what proof do you have that God created anything? The Bible is a fallible work of man, just as science is. To say that God wrote the Bible would be idiotic in the extreme. Did he write the different versions? Did he change the old testament to match Christian ideals?

i don't think so. Man made it up, wrote it down, changed it as necessary and made mistakes in it.

 

[razeontherock]

What we would need to see, if creationism is true, is a lack of a nested hierarchy first and foremost.

This is absolutely foolish! I've watched you babble on about this endlessly and repeatedly, and there is not one scrap of anything to even suggest such a thing, anywhere. A schoolboy can understand evolution, but you haven't got the foggiest clue about God.

 

[razeontherock]

But you keep your eyes open when you cross the street, don't you? Your "I walk by faith" motto is only for when it is convienent.

This is certainly a conflation, consistent with your sub-title. Apparently you have no idea what it means to walk by Faith, so why comment on it?

 

[razeontherock]

Then, just like me, he will deal with the Author at the appropriate time.

I don't answer to science for my righteousness, I answer to God.

Maybe you recognize this tune? This is all my righteousness, nothing but the science of mankind

That's being "sung" a lot around here

 

[RickG]

As Mr. Hovind points out, they automatically gloss over billions of years of non-biological evolution and like to talk about evolution after abiogenesis, but not before it.

Aside from Kent Hovind's problem with the 9th commandment, why would anyone talk about evolution before abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is about the beginning of life, or if you like, its creation. Evolution only explains change after the beginning of life, not its creation or anything before it.

Science does not say life came from nothing, the Torah does. Abiogenesis is not something that happens instantly, it takes considerable time. Conversely, Hebrew creation is "poof...there it is".

 

[razeontherock]

Science does not say life came from nothing, the Torah does. Abiogenesis is not something that happens instantly, it takes considerable time. Conversely, Hebrew creation is "poof...there it is".

Rick?! I expect you to present science well, but I didn't expect to see you misrepresent G-d, in any capacity! What gives here?
(You really don't know any better than this?)