Win a debate against evolution every time.

[samaus12345]

If people want to just stick there fingers in there ears, hands over there eyes and do NO OBJECTIVE investigation into both sides well....please dont call creationists names, you dont even know anything about biology you havnt read origin of species you couldnt answer the questions about the days in genesis.

Proverbs 18:17

The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him.

 

[jilfe]

khaos,

I never agreed that Evolution can work, I was using the example IF it could,
the reason I don't agree is because true science, evidence, has proven over and over again that it is IMPOSSIBLE for MACROevolution to work.



..........................

 

[KTskater]

If people want to just stick there fingers in there ears, hands over there eyes and do NO OBJECTIVE investigation into both sides well....please dont call creationists names, you dont even know anything about biology you havnt read origin of species you couldnt answer the questions about the days in genesis.

Proverbs 18:17

The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him.

This should be a verse that humbles each of us, regardless of our position. The amount of bickering and name calling the I see on these forums saddens me, and probably confirms stereotypes to any non-believer lurking.
We should all be seeking after truth, and even if we come to disagreements along the way, love should still be at the forefront of our discussions.
Those of you who claim to be Christians, don't lose sight of this verse when someone disagrees with you:
By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.- John 13:35 (NASB)

 

[Blackwater Babe]

khaos,

I never agreed that Evolution can work, I was using the example IF it could,
the reason I don't agree is because true science, evidence, has proven over and over again that it is IMPOSSIBLE for MACROevolution to work.



..........................

Which "true science amd evidence" would that be? I'd like a link. But if its to answersingenesis I've already seen it.

 

[jilfe]

It's very obvious you have no understanding in the science field, or you would know exactly where to look for the evidence, it appears to be that you cannot recieve science facts at a scientific level.

 

[KTskater]

It's very obvious you have no understanding in the science field, or you would know exactly where to look for the evidence, it appears to be that you cannot recieve science facts at a scientific level.

When claims are made, such as:

..true science, evidence, has proven over and over again that it is IMPOSSIBLE for MACROevolution to work.

Then the burden for proof falls on the shoulders of those making those claims. You are responsible for providing evidence for your claims, not the people that you are trying to convince.

 

[samaus12345]

No The Burden Of Proof Is On The Claim Contrary To "in The Beginning God Created The Heavens And The Earth" And "so God Created Man In His Own Image, In The Image Of God He Created Him Male And Female He Created Them" ALL IN CAPS

 

[KhaosTheory]

I'd love to see the published paper that proves that macroevolution is impossible!

Please post a link. Is it in the oxford journals? Pubmed? Where?

Oh wait I forgot, the secret evil atheist alliance hacks those sites on a regular basis to remove all papers supporting creationism.

 

[samaus12345]

There is but will you dogmatically reject it apriori?

 

[KTskater]

No The Burden Of Proof Is On The Claim Contrary To "in The Beginning God Created The Heavens And The Earth" And "so God Created Man In His Own Image, In The Image Of God He Created Him Male And Female He Created Them" ALL IN CAPS

If that was the focus of your last post, then I would have to agree with you.
Do you have access to the American Journal of Physical Anthropology or American Journal of Archaeology? If so, I'm certain that I can find you scientifically sound, peer-reviewed articles on the subject of human evolution, radiocarbon dating, Ar/Ar dating, changes in skeletal biology through human ancestors.
Science cannot dispute whether God created the "heavens and the earth", it can only show how it developed. Nor can it deny whether humans were made in the image of God or not, because we have no exact definition as to what it means to be made in the image of God from the Bible.
Science DOES support that there are both males and females, however.

There is but will you dogmatically reject it apriori?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but as someone who is studying science, I will say that my mind is open to whatever conclusion the evidence brings me. If in time I find that there is actual scientific evidence to support the YEC, then my mind will be changed.

 

[samaus12345]

Kt skater you study science good. The alleged genetic mechanism for fish-->everything is 'neofunctionalization"

Neofunctionalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is as r e t a r d e d as it sounds, if you pull up some literatures on them post the link here, full ones not abstracts

 

[KhaosTheory]

There is but will you dogmatically reject it apriori?

You mean like how you reject all the findings of modern biology, geology, paleontology, and anthropology? No, I don't do that to anything.

 

[KhaosTheory]

Kt skater you study science good. The alleged genetic mechanism for fish-->everything is 'neofunctionalization"

Neofunctionalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is as r e t a r d e d as it sounds, if you pull up some literatures on them post the link here, full ones not abstracts

You keep making the same mistake even after we've corrected you.

Gene duplication is not the only way new traits can emerge. You are completely ignoring all the other different types of mutations... Why?

 

[jilfe]

It seems to be ok, for you to reject all the scientific findings that keeps on confirming the Creation model, while the Macor evolution model needs changes all the time, to keep up with new data discovered.

Why do you reject the scientific findings that confirm Creation over and over again?

 

[KTskater]

Kt skater you study science good. The alleged genetic mechanism for fish-->everything is 'neofunctionalization"

Neofunctionalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is as r e t a r d e d as it sounds, if you pull up some literatures on them post the link here, full ones not abstracts

It's not a far-fetched idea within genetics. However, this is just one of many ways new traits appear. Don't forget about hybridization, inbreeding and the like. This is an interesting paper, and you should be able to access the whole thing. It's also short, as far as papers go.

Neofunctionalization of Duplicated Genes Under the Pressure of Gene Conversion

Neofunctionalization with discussion with gene conversion. Here's an overview of gene conversion from our good friend, Wikipedia.

Gene conversion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[KhaosTheory]

It seems to be ok, for you to reject all the scientific findings that keeps on confirming the Creation model, while the Macor evolution model needs changes all the time, to keep up with new data discovered.

Why do you reject the scientific findings that confirm Creation over and over again?

So you think changing in response to new data is bad? Well that explains why you are still a creationist.

 

[samaus12345]

Ktskaters we arnt looking for variation we are looking for BRAND NEW AND UNIQUE functionally sequenced base pairs coding for BRAND NEW AND UNIQUE PROTEINS

They wernt claiming a new gene from neofunctionalization in that paper, pull up one were they are.

 

[mathetes123]

Do you believe the Bible is inerrant and literally correct?

I believe the Bible is inerrant and is intended to be interpreted literally where the context indicates it should be as in the Genesis creation account. I believe there may be some errors in some translations, but the vast store of manuscript evidence demonstrates that the message has been preserved intact.

 

[mathetes123]

I'd love to see the published paper that proves that macroevolution is impossible!

Please post a link. Is it in the oxford journals? Pubmed? Where?

Oh wait I forgot, the secret evil atheist alliance hacks those sites on a regular basis to remove all papers supporting creationism.

I'd love to see the published paper that proves macro evolution.

 

[samaus12345]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah So Would I Bwhahahaahahahahahhaahahahahahahahhaahahahhahaha