Win a debate against evolution every time.

[Metal Minister]

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.

I believe what you are refering to is when atheists and TE's go:


View attachment 127503

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[samaus12345]

haha

 

[KhaosTheory]

So you got anything else to help us debate evolutionists? Strawmen, red herrings, and equivocation fallacies don't usually work.

 

[jilfe]

Khaos quoted:

Until I see a better explanation for why fossils are so temporally stratified in the earth or why the DNA of every animal can be traced back to common ancestors, I'm going to continue to believe in an old earth and evolution...

Is this all you got to go on?
That is not science, but supposition, no wonder your so loss in this.
That explains why your closed minded about the scientific discoveries.

Learn science, so as to share scientific facts, not personal suppositions.

Does your science supposition tell you that adam was evolved?
Your answer to this question is the proof wether you understand science or not.

 

[mark kennedy]

So you got anything else to help us debate evolutionists? Strawmen, red herrings, and equivocation fallacies don't usually work.

Oh you have your nerve after the fallacious rhetoric you have been splashing on the board with broad brush stokes. The way you use the word 'evolution' itself is classic equivocation since you are using two definitions. Modernists are constantly change the meaning of words, even theological terminology is no longer sacred. Evolution is not just the scientific phenomenon, it's also an apriori naturalistic assumption that God is never a cause of anything going back to the Big Bang. When you defined evolution why didn't you come up with a scientific definition that excluded God or special creation? I know why, you can't and you can't refute it on the evidence either. So you equivocate the assumption with the science to poison the well for anyone who is not a Christian yet. That's the fallacious philosophy you are spewing across these boards whether you know it or not, like it or not, whether you want to admit it or not.

This post is a classic ad hominem and no matter where the discussion starts it always ends up here. All evolutionists must go here, belief in God is deeply personal so it has to be attacked on a personal level. Every post has to be some kind of a personal attack, lead up to one, or off of one.

Your posts are riddled with fallacious logic always seasoned with sharp personal attacks. If you had a substantive argument you wouldn't be begging the question of proof on your hands and knees.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[KhaosTheory]

Khaos quoted:

Until I see a better explanation for why fossils are so temporally stratified in the earth or why the DNA of every animal can be traced back to common ancestors, I'm going to continue to believe in an old earth and evolution...

Is this all you got to go on?
That is not science, but supposition, no wonder your so loss in this.
That explains why your closed minded about the scientific discoveries.

Learn science, so as to share scientific facts, not personal suppositions.

Does your science supposition tell you that adam was evolved?
Your answer to this question is the proof wether you understand science or not.

What is a supposition? The rocks? The fossils in the ground? What am I supposing? I'm just looking at the facts.

The deeper you dig the more simple and more alike every fossil appears to be until you get so deep that everything is so tiny that you can barely find any fossils at all...

How is this not science? Science is observing nature and nothing is more natural than rocks, eh?

Tell me, how does your literal creation and flood story explain this evidence?

 

[KhaosTheory]

Oh you have your nerve after the fallacious rhetoric you have been splashing on the board with broad brush stokes. The way you use the word 'evolution' itself is classic equivocation since you are using two definitions.

Actually I'm the only one that is using one definition for evolution... I recall you listing SEVERAL definitions for evolution so who is equivocating here?

Evolution is very simple. It's the changes in the inherited characteristics of populations.

The same mechanism that makes you look like your parents is the same exact mechanism that allowed dinosaurs to become birds...

You are the one who is equivocating through and through... You won't admit that it's perfectly reasonable to extrapolate what we see on the micro scale with what we've found on the macro scale.

If traits are inheritable AT ALL then there's nothing stopping a fish from developing lungs and legs.You just refuse to see the connection.

Evolution is not just the scientific phenomenon, it's also an apriori naturalistic assumption that God is never a cause of anything going back to the Big Bang.

God is in control of everything even evolution.

When you defined evolution why didn't you come up with a scientific definition that excluded God or special creation? I know why, you can't and you can't refute it on the evidence either.

You can't exclude God from anything... He is the source of everything... However, we've completely destroyed your "special creation" hypothesis.

This post is a classic ad hominem and no matter where the discussion starts it always ends up here. All evolutionists must go here, belief in God is deeply personal so it has to be attacked on a personal level. Every post has to be some kind of a personal attack, lead up to one, or off of one.

What part about me asking for an explanation for the perfect temporal stratification of fossils is an ad hominem attack?

 

[mark kennedy]

Actually I'm the only one that is using one definition for evolution... I recall you listing SEVERAL definitions for evolution so who is equivocating here?

Evolution is very simple. It's the changes in the inherited characteristics of populations.

The same mechanism that makes you look like your parents is the same exact mechanism that allowed dinosaurs to become birds...

Do you know why Mendel was experimenting with hybrids in the first place?

You are the one who is equivocating through and through... You won't admit that it's perfectly reasonable to extrapolate what we see on the micro scale with what we've found on the macro scale.

My issue is with inductive reasoning passing itself off as a transcendent principle of exclusively naturalistic causes. That's my only issue with the scientific definition of evolution in biology. I make no pretense of being guided by an aprior assumption of God as Creator, an a priori fact that is self evident and not subject to the normative queries of empirical testing.

Unlike you I admit the scientific definition of evolution as the change of alleles in populations over time and my firm conviction of God as Creator and creation the substantive principle that transcends all of life. I'm not blending the two, I clearly tell anyone who is listening that this is the point of the evidential apologetic I employ.

You however, never once have admitted your naturalistic assumptions. That flawed argument is a classic equivocation fallacy. The way you argue for mutations as a vehicle of natural selection is another. You have to get the beneficial trait first for natural selection to act on it. If you don't have a molecular mechanism (not a copy error) sufficient you are begging the question of proof.

If traits are inheritable AT ALL then there's nothing stopping a fish from developing lungs and legs.You just refuse to see the connection.

So because traits are inheritable then you can assume naturalistic causes throughout the history of life. I refuse to make that assumption and you refuse to admit I must in order to accept the double meaning of evolution as you have defined it.

God is in control of everything even evolution.

That's a given, God is Creator, that is also a given. You argue furiously against the latter while pretending to believe the former. How does that work?

You can't exclude God from anything... He is the source of everything... However, we've completely destroyed your "special creation" hypothesis.

You have categorically rejected God as Creator and yet claim this is somehow definitive. There is another fallacious line of reasoning your being told actually works from your Darwinian audience, it's called begging the question and your a fairly typical front man for it.

What part about me asking for an explanation for the perfect temporal stratification of fossils is an ad hominem attack?

You haven't the slightest interest in paleontology or at least you have never offered an argument from the fossil record. You throw around pithy, pedantic, rhetorical clutch phrases that are just as scathing as you can get them and pretend that's a scientific argument.

You have no less then three fallacious arguments in this post alone not counting the ad hominem you started with and invariably end with. Your being used, get off the stage, turn up the house lights and learn who these people in the shadows really are. Because I can tell you for a fact, they are anything but Christian.

You can start with the definition of evolution. How many definitions are there?

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[jilfe]

Hello
If your supposition about science data, makes you think that Adam, had to evolve, or He never existed, then that proves your scientific supposings, are completely wrong, because there is literal written truth, in the Bible, that the creation of the first human being was named Adam, and the Bilical message concerning the need for Christ to redeem mankind, is in literal context with Adam as the first Human being created by God.

So how can you say you ubderstand science at a scientific level, when this conclusion with science data your coming up with ,,seems to infer that Adam would have had to evolve.

Lk:3:38: Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Rom:5:14: Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

1Cor:15:22: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

1Cor:15:45: And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

1Tm:2:13: For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

1Tm:2:14: And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Jude:1:14: And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

These verses are meant to be read literally.

 

[Metal Minister]

Do you know why Mendel was experimenting with hybrids in the first place?

My issue is with inductive reasoning passing itself off as a transcendent principle of exclusively naturalistic causes. That's my only issue with the scientific definition of evolution in biology. I make no pretense of being guided by an aprior assumption of God as Creator, an a priori fact that is self evident and not subject to the normative queries of empirical testing.

Unlike you I admit the scientific definition of evolution as the change of alleles in populations over time and my firm conviction of God as Creator and creation the substantive principle that transcends all of life. I'm not blending the two, I clearly tell anyone who is listening that this is the point of the evidential apologetic I employ.

You however, never once have admitted your naturalistic assumptions. That flawed argument is a classic equivocation fallacy. The way you argue for mutations as a vehicle of natural selection is another. You have to get the beneficial trait first for natural selection to act on it. If you don't have a molecular mechanism (not a copy error) sufficient you are begging the question of proof.

So because traits are inheritable then you can assume naturalistic causes throughout the history of life. I refuse to make that assumption and you refuse to admit I must in order to accept the double meaning of evolution as you have defined it.

That's a given, God is Creator, that is also a given. You argue furiously against the latter while pretending to believe the former. How does that work?

You have categorically rejected God as Creator and yet claim this is somehow definitive. There is another fallacious line of reasoning your being told actually works from your Darwinian audience, it's called begging the question and your a fairly typical front man for it.

You haven't the slightest interest in paleontology or at least you have never offered an argument from the fossil record. You throw around pithy, pedantic, rhetorical clutch phrases that are just as scathing as you can get them and pretend that's a scientific argument.

You have no less then three fallacious arguments in this post alone not counting the ad hominem you started with and invariably end with. Your being used, get off the stage, turn up the house lights and learn who these people in the shadows really are. Because I can tell you for a fact, they are anything but Christian.

You can start with the definition of evolution. How many definitions are there?

Have a nice day
Mark

Mark, this line of "scientific" argument from folks like Khaos, goes back to Huxley and possibly further. They attack the person, they attack the faith, and they twist the evidence, but they cannot prove their theories conclusively. It gets tiresome to scroll these boards through walls of text, saying nothing, and all ending in the same place. Assumption.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[samaus12345]

haha

 

[KhaosTheory]

You call macroevolution an assumption... Even though we've seen it first hand in the lab and in the field...

We know that traits are inheritable... We know new traits can emerge... We see the fossil record matching perfectly with what we would expect to find assuming that traits are passed down through flowering lines of descent.

you call this an assumption? We are just putting two and two together... I suppose it's possible that macroevolution didn't actually occur even though every shred of physical evidence supports it but that would imply that God was trying to trick us and I don't think he woukd do that.

 

[mathetes123]

You call macroevolution an assumption... Even though we've seen it first hand in the lab and in the field...

We know that traits are inheritable... We know new traits can emerge... We see the fossil record matching perfectly with what we would expect to find assuming that traits are passed down through flowering lines of descent.

you call this an assumption? We are just putting two and two together... I suppose it's possible that macroevolution didn't actually occur even though every shred of physical evidence supports it but that would imply that God was trying to trick us and I don't think he woukd do that.

What evidence.

 

[KhaosTheory]

What evidence.

Google it.

You aren't actually going to watch anything i post so im not wasting my time.

 

[Metal Minister]

Google it.

You aren't actually going to watch anything i post so im not wasting my time.

Macro-evolution is 100% bologna. It has never been seen in the field. We have never seen one kind of animal become a completely different kind of animal.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[KhaosTheory]

Macro-evolution is 100% bologna. It has never been seen in the field. We have never seen one kind of animal become a completely different kind of animal.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

Ok you win, macroevolution never actually happened. Im just curious, what would the fossil record look like if it did ever occur?

You know, hypothetically... We've already established that its impossible for an animal to become so different from its parent population that it can no loner interbred (macroevolution), so just for kicks, what do you think the geologic column would show if this crazy thing actually did happen?

 

[KhaosTheory]

Oh and just because I'm a sucker...

Here ya go:

Evolution: Library: Ring Species: Salamanders

 

[Metal Minister]

To look up the hoax of archeaptryx...that's a good place to start. Go look up how we find whales in sediment supposedly millions of years before they could've possibly evolved. Please do some real digging, because I'm not foolish enough to get into this inane posting war with you. I have better things to do than this:


View attachment 127506

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[Metal Minister]

Oh, and that is not macro-evolution. Otherwise you couldnt call say rabbits that can no longer interbreed the same kind of animal...

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[jilfe]

What geologic column,
that's where your getting messed up at, your looking at a natural phenomena, with the wrong interpretation.

The geologic column is hypothetical, learn all the background of layering, do experiments yourself, instead of allowing your mind to be fed from all these atheistic teachings.

Search out for yourself, without googling about this phenomena, think rationally about rock layering, do some scientific investigation yourself, and then share your findings, not someone elses.

To be a scientist you need to do your own experimentating, not just rely on others interpretations.
Come up with your own discovered evidence.