|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mike Painter
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:18 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
 |
|
Inez wrote:
| Quote: |
On Apr 24, 9:50 pm, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about
where we came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific
fact. Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
(A)
I submit to you that we rarely if ever know anything to a 100% degree
of accuracy, and that the usual reason that people insist on an
impossibly high standard of proof is that they are desperately
clinging to a belief system that is much less well supported.
|
Proof is something that mathematicians enjoy. Science relies on theory, not
proof.
As soon as someone starts demanding proof you have solid evidence that he or
she probably can't define a theory and certainly does not understand the
concept. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
SeppoP
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
louann_m@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Apr 25, 2:42 am, Rusty Sites <SpameYou...@spamex.com> wrote:
Apocalypse wrote:
This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific fact.
Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
The first sentence makes no sense but the second one seems to reveal the
message anyway. You said and that settles it.
Has this one been through before, or is he an entirely new ticket-
holder in the barking-mad seats?
|
It *could* be Elijahovah on meds, at least they're both posting from
RoadRunner. (Elijahovah from 69.76.47.182 and Apocalypse from 69.76.133.65).
-sp |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
LT
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 12:29 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On Apr 25, 1:50 am, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
| Quote: |
It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about where we
came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific fact.
Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
(A)
|
Another post-and-run fucktard. Thanks for the input.
LT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
The Enigmatic One
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:04 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
In article <48116300$0$20168$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Apocalypse@NoSpam.Com
says...
| Quote: |
It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about where we
came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific fact.
Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
|
Wow.
You're fucking dumb!
-Tim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Paul J Gans
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:50 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
Cory Albrecht <coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
The Enigmatic One wrote:
In article <48116300$0$20168$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Apocalypse@NoSpam.Com
says...
It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about where we
came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific fact.
Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
Wow.
You're fucking dumb!
One question, Mr. (Ms.?) Enigmatic One. Do you ever post anything other
than variants on "You're fucking dumb"?
|
Probably not. But it is only a variation on some of the regulars
who treat every non-expert question as if it is being asked by
a sneaky creationist.
Probably 70% of the questions *are* being asked by sneaky creationists.
But being nasty isn't the way to win hearts and minds. I'm not a
sneaky creationist and I know it *annoys* me.
--
--- Paul J. Gans |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Paul J Gans
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:55 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
The Enigmatic One <try@again.spammers> wrote:
| Quote: |
In article <6gsee5x2s.ln2@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net>, coryalbrecht@hotmail.com
says...
One question, Mr. (Ms.?) Enigmatic One. Do you ever post anything other
than variants on "You're fucking dumb"?
Sure. But as almost everyone is way too polite to come up with the proper
response for utter idiots like, say, Apocalypse, I feel that I really must take
it upon myself to do so.
|
Why? Are you winning friends for evolution that way?
You do understand that creationist use emotion to fight evolution.
Does that convince you? Why do you think that using emotion back
at creationists will win them over?
All it does is brand you another rude pig for evolution.
We don't need that.
--
--- Paul J. Gans |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Cory Albrecht
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:16 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
Geoff wrote:
| Quote: |
The Enigmatic One wrote:
In article <6gsee5x2s.ln2@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net>,
coryalbrecht@hotmail.com says...
One question, Mr. (Ms.?) Enigmatic One. Do you ever post anything
other than variants on "You're fucking dumb"?
Sure. But as almost everyone is way too polite to come up with the
proper response for utter idiots like, say, Apocalypse, I feel that I
really must take it upon myself to do so.
I was hoping you were going to write, "You're fucking dumb!"
|
So was I. Damn.  :-)
But since I read talk.origins every day hoping to meet a creationist who
admits when s/he is wrong, is willing to learn, doesn't reuse that same
strawmen over again after they have been debunked to their face and
doesn't lie as a matter of course,... well, I guess you could say that I
am used to disappointment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Lee Jay
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 1:37 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On Apr 28, 6:27 pm, Vernon Balbert <vbalb...@gmail.nospam.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On 4/28/2008 5:21 PM, Lee Jay went clickity clack on the keyboard and
produced this interesting bit of text:
On Apr 28, 6:13 pm, Vernon Balbert <vbalb...@gmail.nospam.com> wrote:
On 4/28/2008 5:01 PM, Lee Jay went clickity clack on the keyboard and
produced this interesting bit of text:
On Apr 28, 5:57 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 28, 4:41 pm, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote:
Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:64e6d549-40f7-48fb-a910-d84a5091da72@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 28, 9:53 am, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b3f59e4-45e5-4101-bb14-890bab7ea18e@b9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 28, 8:41 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 28, 10:43 am, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
"Shane" <remar...@Netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1uokk5hy3lo6z.17rgd7lxr9p0t.dlg@40tude.net...
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:50:08 -0500, Apocalypse wrote:
It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no
conclusive scientific evidence to support any claim that we
know enough about where
we
came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a
scientific fact.
Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
[snip]
Science is not in
the business of saying this theory, which explains this fact, is
set in
stone and is impossible to refute.
While that statement does put science in to its proper place that
is not
what one observes in the world. In the area of origins what one
observes is
the propagation of some myth that science has long since proven
evolution
and origins. This is not true.
Science is only a process to observe, weigh and measure. It has
proven many
facts but has proven nothing substantive as far as origins.
The more we know (scientifically), the more we realize we just
don't know.
(A)
Science, alas for you, is an epistomology or way of knowing and not
simply a process to observe, weigh, and measure. Science does not
"prove" anything. It generates and tests *testable* models and
explanations against *observable* material reality to determine if
the explanations are "consistent with" the tests. Specifically,
science *limits* itself to understanding how the material world
works by means of materially observable phenomena. The process
involves hypothesis testing (testing specific expectations) and
theory testing (determining whether the results of hypothesis
testing are "consistent with" current theory).
The more we know scientifically, the better (the more consistent
with observable reality) are the models to observable reality.
Ignorance is not typically an outcome of the scientific method even
when it overthrows current theory.
The facts are that observable reality is overwhelmingly consistent
with the ideas that the current forms of life arose by the branching
historical process of species change we call 'evolution'. No other
*testable* model (ID is a non-testable model that can be made
consistent with any information since it makes no specific testable
predictions).
Now, I made a *testable* prediction that you would not reply and
engage in a dialog where you would try to support your position.
That hypothesis has now been partly falsified. [You responded, but
merely made more evidenceless assertions.] As a scientist, I simply
accept that, and now make a further hypothesis modifiying the
original one. Since your response was nothing but an unsupported
repeat of your original assertions, I now make a further hypothesis
that you are incapable of presenting an actual scientific argument,
with actual evidence that is "inconsistent with" the tests that have
led scientists to the 'evolution model'. [And, no, it does not
require the actual observation of speciation in real time, even
though that has been observed. It only requires testable hypotheses
such as that there be a discernible pattern of fossils in the
geologic layers and consistent pattern of neutral change in sequence
that would be unlikely to be due to chance.]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Howard admitted, in the first paragraph, that Darwinian "Science does
not 'prove' anything."
But evolutionists constantly bombard us with the strong statement
that evolution is an undisputed fact.
What is proven is that evolutionists contradict themselves and are
not sure about anything; except their science does not prove anything
and that evolution is a fact.
Ray
Wow I am not alone! Thanks Ray.
This is exactly and exclusively my point. I am no scientist but
understanding this only requires common sense (aka: street smarts). It
is my opinion based on all the facts (I am aware of), there is no
conclusive scientific evidence to support evolution of species as fact
(nor any other theory trying to explain the diversity of life in
scientific terms).
Right, the evidence does not support evolution; but the observation of
design and organized complexity seen in nature as a whole and in each
individual organism testifies to Divine causation: Creationism-Design
is true.
Where is the evidence of that?
What
angers me is that this vital information is footnoted, trivialized or
hidden from the general public.
It's the way evolutionists operate. They are not in the business of
science, but Atheism.
Many are led as sheep to believe it must be true.
Accurate way of describing the ordinary evolutionist and many of their
run-of-the-mill "scientists." Since the Biblical explanation is not an
option for Atheism, what choice do they have? Evolution is a one horse
race.
Show us the proof of the "Biblical Explanation".
Furthermore, anyone who questions the validity of this theory based on
the exact same scientific evidence purported to confirm it is ridiculed
and often told the only way to refute evolution of species is to offer
an alternate theory...which is absurd.
Agreed.
We have also agreed that the evidence does not support the claims.
This means evolutionists must accept and act like the evidence does
because the Biblical explanation is not an option.
Biblical explaination - but not Biblical EVIDENCE.
Where is the EVIDENCE?
Start with the sort that doesn't contradict itself.....
Gen 1:11-12, Trees were created before man was created.
Gen 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
Gen 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
Gen 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
Gen 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
Gen 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
Gen 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
Gen 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"Interpretation" by our Atheist presupposes two chronologies, no
wonder they contradict.
Ray
The reason they don't contradict is that a literal reading of the
Bible is usually wrong.
But I thought creationists took a literal reading of the Bible to be the
way it is.
Only when it suits them.
Golly gee whiz, I sure wish I could play fast and loose and pick and
choose which parts of life I wanted so it would make me feel good. But
nooooo, gravity keeps tugging down at me and the litter box needs to be
cleaned now and then. I wonder how those creationists get around stuff
like that.
|
You can...just become a fundy. It makes them feel good to believe
stuff which isn't true, and that feeling overrides any need they might
have to seek the truth. Whether their reality matches with actual
reality is irrelevant to their happiness. They've had their fears
addressed, and so they feel fine. It's much like a narcotic addiction
- addicts feel good, and don't care much about reality, since reality
often hurts. And like addicts, they don't recognize their situation.
Lee Jay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Lee Jay
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 1:46 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On Apr 28, 7:24 pm, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:vbac141mhlvi89dk6v9q1qb735df8ms18g@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:53:42 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Apocalypse"
Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com>:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b3f59e4-45e5-4101-bb14-890bab7ea18e@b9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 28, 8:41 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 28, 10:43 am, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
"Shane" <remar...@Netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1uokk5hy3lo6z.17rgd7lxr9p0t.dlg@40tude.net...
Do "street smarts" tell you why the sun can continue to
provide energy for billions of years?
Yes. Anyone with common sense can comprehend the general processes taking
place on the sun *and that* the sun has a finite amount of stuff to support
those processes *and that* this process will run it's course over a set
period of time and the stuff will run out.
Here's a loose analogy for your pompus self. Do you need a PHD to know how
far down the road a tank of gas will get you?
Evidence supporting evolution of species is lacking (to me obsurd) and for
someone like you who comes across as having an IQ higher than their age
calling this a fact.....with a straight face? Laughable.
Do "street smarts"
tell you how your computer works (the circuitry, not the
"on" switch and mouse buttons)?
Do you need to be an electrical engineer to know what do to when a light
bulb doesn't work?
Not a chance; street smarts
can tell you how to act in the 'hood, but provide no help
whatsoever when the subject is technical and requires more
than a 6th-grade education.
Laughable.
Apparently "street smarts" are also incapable of
distinguishing an observed fact (speciation, in the lab and
in nature) from the proposed explanation of that observed
fact, which you mistakenly call "evolution".
Speciation in a lab? Really? Do tell.
(A)
|
It's funny that you admit to both knowing nothing about a subject and
at the same time knowing more than those who have devoted their lives
to the study and investigation of that subject. It truly is
"obsurd" (sic), which is spelled "absurd" to those having an education
higher than the second grade.
Intuition, on which you base most of your conclusions, is so easy to
fool and so often wrong that the scientific method uses it only in the
very first step of problem solving (hypothesis formation) and even
then only when insufficient information is present, and it only works
for that that have intimate knowledge of the subject. After that,
analysis subject to independent confirmation wins out. This is
precisely because "street smarts", "intuition", and "common sense" are
so unreliable in the real world of science. If "common sense" were
all we had, we'd never have invented flash memory, since it relies on
a highly counter-intuitive mechanism to work.
Lee Jay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Apocalypse
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:24 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:vbac141mhlvi89dk6v9q1qb735df8ms18g@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:53:42 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Apocalypse"
Apocalypse@NoSpam.Com>:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b3f59e4-45e5-4101-bb14-890bab7ea18e@b9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 28, 8:41 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 28, 10:43 am, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
"Shane" <remar...@Netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1uokk5hy3lo6z.17rgd7lxr9p0t.dlg@40tude.net...
Do "street smarts" tell you why the sun can continue to
provide energy for billions of years?
|
Yes. Anyone with common sense can comprehend the general processes taking
place on the sun *and that* the sun has a finite amount of stuff to support
those processes *and that* this process will run it's course over a set
period of time and the stuff will run out.
Here's a loose analogy for your pompus self. Do you need a PHD to know how
far down the road a tank of gas will get you?
Evidence supporting evolution of species is lacking (to me obsurd) and for
someone like you who comes across as having an IQ higher than their age
calling this a fact.....with a straight face? Laughable.
| Quote: |
Do "street smarts"
tell you how your computer works (the circuitry, not the
"on" switch and mouse buttons)?
|
Do you need to be an electrical engineer to know what do to when a light
bulb doesn't work?
| Quote: |
Not a chance; street smarts
can tell you how to act in the 'hood, but provide no help
whatsoever when the subject is technical and requires more
than a 6th-grade education.
|
Laughable.
| Quote: |
Apparently "street smarts" are also incapable of
distinguishing an observed fact (speciation, in the lab and
in nature) from the proposed explanation of that observed
fact, which you mistakenly call "evolution".
|
Speciation in a lab? Really? Do tell.
(A) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Apocalypse
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:37 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pVH9NYS$hgFIFwW7@meden.invalid...
| Quote: |
In message <48160116$0$5121$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Apocalypse
Apocalypse@NoSpam.Com> writes
"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b3f59e4-45e5-4101-bb14-890bab7ea18e@b9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 28, 8:41 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 28, 10:43 am, "Apocalypse" <Apocaly...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
"Shane" <remar...@Netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1uokk5hy3lo6z.17rgd7lxr9p0t.dlg@40tude.net...
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:50:08 -0500, Apocalypse wrote:
It is at *best* a theory. The truth is that there is no conclusive
scientific evidence to support any claim that we know enough about
where
we
came from to call any idea currently on the table....a fact.
This is statement meets the criteria to be considered a scientific
fact.
Anyone that contradicts this is a liar.
[snip]
Science is not in
the business of saying this theory, which explains this fact, is
set
in
stone and is impossible to refute.
While that statement does put science in to its proper place that is
not
what one observes in the world. In the area of origins what one
observes is
the propagation of some myth that science has long since proven
evolution
and origins. This is not true.
Science is only a process to observe, weigh and measure. It has
proven
many
facts but has proven nothing substantive as far as origins.
The more we know (scientifically), the more we realize we just don't
know.
(A)
Science, alas for you, is an epistomology or way of knowing and not
simply a process to observe, weigh, and measure. Science does not
"prove" anything. It generates and tests *testable* models and
explanations against *observable* material reality to determine if the
explanations are "consistent with" the tests. Specifically, science
*limits* itself to understanding how the material world works by means
of materially observable phenomena. The process involves hypothesis
testing (testing specific expectations) and theory testing
(determining whether the results of hypothesis testing are "consistent
with" current theory).
The more we know scientifically, the better (the more consistent with
observable reality) are the models to observable reality. Ignorance
is not typically an outcome of the scientific method even when it
overthrows current theory.
The facts are that observable reality is overwhelmingly consistent
with the ideas that the current forms of life arose by the branching
historical process of species change we call 'evolution'. No other
*testable* model (ID is a non-testable model that can be made
consistent with any information since it makes no specific testable
predictions).
Now, I made a *testable* prediction that you would not reply and
engage in a dialog where you would try to support your position. That
hypothesis has now been partly falsified. [You responded, but merely
made more evidenceless assertions.] As a scientist, I simply accept
that, and now make a further hypothesis modifiying the original one.
Since your response was nothing but an unsupported repeat of your
original assertions, I now make a further hypothesis that you are
incapable of presenting an actual scientific argument, with actual
evidence that is "inconsistent with" the tests that have led
scientists to the 'evolution model'. [And, no, it does not require
the actual observation of speciation in real time, even though that
has been observed. It only requires testable hypotheses such as that
there be a discernible pattern of fossils in the geologic layers and
consistent pattern of neutral change in sequence that would be
unlikely to be due to chance.]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Howard admitted, in the first paragraph, that Darwinian "Science does
not 'prove' anything."
But evolutionists constantly bombard us with the strong statement that
evolution is an undisputed fact.
What is proven is that evolutionists contradict themselves and are not
sure about anything; except their science does not prove anything and
that evolution is a fact.
Ray
Wow I am not alone! Thanks Ray.
This is exactly and exclusively my point. I am no scientist but
understanding this only requires common sense (aka: street smarts). It is
my opinion based on all the facts (I am aware of), there is no conclusive
scientific evidence to support evolution of species as fact (nor any other
theory trying to explain the diversity of life in scientific terms). What
angers me is that this vital information is footnoted, trivialized or
hidden
from the general public. Many are led as sheep to believe it must be
true.
Furthermore, anyone who questions the validity of this theory based on the
exact same scientific evidence purported to confirm it is ridiculed and
often told the only way to refute evolution of species is to offer an
alternate theory...which is absurd.
Evolution of species does not appear to be possible and yet it is shoved
down peoples throats as if it were fact. Almost laughable. It would
appear
there is some sort of an agenda at work here (or) that accepting evolution
of species as fact is required for some greater belief system I do not
understand.
(A)
Then how do you explain the appearance of Spartina anglica
|
A hybrid grass? This is your proof of evolution of species?
| Quote: |
How do you explain experimental recreation of species such as
Ararabidopsis sueica,
|
So the fact that we can alter DNA artifiscially is relevant here?
| Quote: |
Galeopsis tetrahit, Brassica carinata, Brassica napus, Brassica juncea,
Dactylis glomerata, Madia citrigracilis, Nicotiana tabacum and Triticum
aestivum? How do you explain the laboratory created species such as the
various Raphanobrassicas
|
More hybrinds....wow this is eath shattering. What is your point Enie?
| Quote: |
and Triticosecales, Brassica napocampestris, Brassica naponigra, Elytricum
fertile and Solanum indianense?
--
alias Ernest Major
|
So far you have not been able to *show me the proof*. We both know why, it
doesn't exist.
(A) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mitchell Holman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:02 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
Ray Martinez <pyramidial@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:63fc3520-93f4-4199-9fdf-1f8fb9a984b8@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
| Quote: |
On Apr 28, 4:41 pm, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote:
Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:64e6d549-40f7-48fb-a910-d84a5091da72@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
Accurate way of describing the ordinary evolutionist and many of
their run-of-the-mill "scientists." Since the Biblical explanation is
not an option for Atheism, what choice do they have? Evolution is a
one horse race.
Show us the proof of the "Biblical Explanation".
Furthermore, anyone who questions the validity of this theory based
on the exact same scientific evidence purported to confirm it is
ridiculed and often told the only way to refute evolution of species
is to offer an alternate theory...which is absurd.
Agreed.
We have also agreed that the evidence does not support the claims.
This means evolutionists must accept and act like the evidence does
because the Biblical explanation is not an option.
Biblical explaination - but not Biblical EVIDENCE.
Where is the EVIDENCE?
Start with the sort that doesn't contradict itself.....
Gen 1:11-12, Trees were created before man was created.
Gen 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
Gen 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
Gen 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
Gen 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
Gen 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
Gen 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
Gen 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.- Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"Interpretation" by our Atheist presupposes two chronologies, no
wonder they contradict.
|
I notice you haven't posted your "interpretation"
that shows those passages are in fact consistent.
But then, it is a rare Bible literalist who has
actually read the book........... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dana Tweedy
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:29 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:63fc3520-93f4-4199-9fdf-1f8fb9a984b8@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On Apr 28, 4:41 pm, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote:
snip of questions unanswered, and contradictions unaddressed |
| Quote: |
"Interpretation" by our Atheist presupposes two chronologies, no
wonder they contradict.
|
Ray, does it bother you at all, that you have no honesty at all?
DJT
> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mitchell Holman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 9:37 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@bresnan.net> wrote in
news:gsydna3Y6e2HFYvVnZ2dnUVZ_tCrnZ2d@bresnan.com:
| Quote: |
"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:63fc3520-93f4-4199-9fdf-1f8fb9a984b8@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 28, 4:41 pm, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote:
snip of questions unanswered, and contradictions unaddressed
"Interpretation" by our Atheist presupposes two chronologies, no
wonder they contradict.
Ray, does it bother you at all, that you have no honesty at all?
|
If he had a shred of honesty he wouldn't be a Creationist,
much less a Christian fundy.............. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Vernon Balbert
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:48 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On 4/28/2008 7:02 PM, Mitchell Holman went clickity clack on the
keyboard and produced this interesting bit of text:
| Quote: |
But then, it is a rare Bible literalist who has
actually read the book...........
|
Every time I refute fundies with the scriptures they pretend to follow
so closely they change the subject. If they actually read the book they
revere so much they'd find so much that would either confuse them or
change their tunes for a lot of things.
--
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Wuh, I think so, Brain, but will they let the Cranberry Dutchess stay
in the Lincoln Bedroom?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
