Winter Wheat Video Lecture

[Mr Laurier]

Another question I have not seen answered conclusively is just how long men have been genetically modifying plants. I suspect it was happening way before recorded human history. There's too much we don't know. But evolution assumes such things have been uniform throughout history. So it assumes we must have pulled ourselves out of the muck by our own non-existent bootstraps. Never allowing for a hint of the supernatural.

Alas, evolution makes no such assumption.

 

[Astrid]

Alas, evolution makes no such assumption.

It's a weird statement, for sure. No chance of any supporting
reference. It doesn't even make sense. Falsehood and illogic with
a heavy dose of cant.
Won't someone send us a good creationist?

 

[Speedwell]

As opposed to the random internet people supporting evolution by claiming that humans breeding plants proves we all evolved from nothing...Lol.

Another logical fallacy--the straw man.

 

[AV1611VET]

Won't someone send us a good creationist?

Someone did.

And they crucified Him.

 

[Speedwell]

It's Genetic entropy. Self-explanatory. If you believe he's wrong, prove to me that we are not degrading genetically.

Why should I prove it to you, since you're not the one making the argument? Why should I prove anything to you? I don't care what you believe about evolution--you're the one trying to prove it false (for some reason you are shy about revealing.)

 

[Astrid]

Another logical fallacy--the straw man.

"Lol" preceding a strawman makes it valid.
Didn't you know.

 

[VirOptimus]

Someone did.

And they crucified Him.

Who crucified?

 

[Astrid]

Why should I prove it to you, since you're not the one making the argument? Why should I prove anything to you? I don't care what you believe about evolution--you're the one trying to prove it false (for some reason you are shy about revealing.)

A person would want to know how cockroaches could still be
going strong after 300 million years with all this entropy going on.

Eze answer hinted ar earlier was, the dates are wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who crucified?

The scholars of the day put Him on the cross after the decision to crucify Him passed peer review in a series of rigged trials.

 

[VirOptimus]

The scholars of the day put Him on the cross after the decision to crucify Him passed peer review in a series of rigged trials.

Aha, I see. And your support for this is?

 

[AV1611VET]

Eze answer hinted ar earlier was, the dates are wrong.

That's an understatement!

300,000 million years?

More like, since 2348 BC, when they came off the Ark.

 

[AV1611VET]

Aha, I see. And your support for this is?

The Bible.

 

[VirOptimus]

The Bible.

No, your twisted interpretation maybe.

In your opinion, did Jesus turn water into wine or did he turn it into non-alcoholic grapejuice?

 

[AV1611VET]

No, your twisted interpretation maybe.

Jesus went through six illegal trials before He was whisked away to the Cross.

That's not my "twisted interpretation."

That's basic doctrine.

 

[VirOptimus]

Jesus went through six illegal trials before He was whisked away to the Cross.

That's not my "twisted interpretation."

That's basic doctrine.

Illegal by whos standard? The Romans?

 

[AV1611VET]

Illegal by whos standard? The Romans?

Oh, boy.

 

[VirOptimus]

Oh, boy.

If you cant answer, just say so.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you cant answer, just say so.

What difference does it make to someone who accused me of having a "twisted interpretation," when I espoused basic doctrine?

You're the one who doesn't know basic doctrine, that's why you said what you said.

I might be ignit, but I know my doctrine.

 

[VirOptimus]

What difference does it make to someone who accused me of having a "twisted interpretation," when I espoused basic doctrine?

You're the one who doesn't know basic doctrine, that's why you said what you said.

I might be ignit, but I know my doctrine.

No you dont. And your posts just seem to be a sneaky way to accuse the Jews for killing Jesus.

And you didnt answer my question about wine.

 

[Speedwell]

What difference does it make to someone who accused me of having a "twisted interpretation," when I espoused basic doctrine?

You're the one who doesn't know basic doctrine, that's why you said what you said.

I might be ignit, but I know my doctrine.

I agree. You certainly know the basic doctrine of your own subset of Christianity.