# Science Proves the Bible Again



## Death Angel

"The fountains of the deep."

The Great Flood occurred, not only because of the rain, ite also says the earth "opened up" and released the "fountains of the deep."

Another huge OCEAN deep within gave up its water for a time.

Did Geologists Discover ‘Fountains of the Deep’ From Genesis Flood?


----------



## Moonglow

For some reason I got this here water well pump that pumps water from under the ground so I proved the flood from Genesis first.


----------



## TNHarley

"The earth opened up and flooded the earth with hydrogen and oxygen molecules"
Yes i totally get it.


----------



## Hollie

Death Angel said:


> "The fountains of the deep."
> 
> The Great Flood occurred, not only because of the rain, ite also says the earth "opened up" and released the "fountains of the deep."
> 
> Another huge OCEAN deep within gave up its water for a time.
> 
> Did Geologists Discover ‘Fountains of the Deep’ From Genesis Flood?



That’s so silly.


----------



## Death Angel

Hollie said:


> That’s so silly


Tour ignorance and denial of facts is silly. Dont be a DENIER.


----------



## alang1216

Death Angel said:


> "The fountains of the deep."
> 
> The Great Flood occurred, not only because of the rain, ite also says the earth "opened up" and released the "fountains of the deep."
> 
> Another huge OCEAN deep within gave up its water for a time.
> 
> Did Geologists Discover ‘Fountains of the Deep’ From Genesis Flood?


Any global flood would have been a supernatural event.  Pure and simple.  Nature does not provide a mechanism for pulling massive amounts of water, in whatever form, buried beneath miles of rock, in any time frame less than millions of years.


----------



## Hollie

Death Angel said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s so silly
> 
> 
> 
> Tour ignorance and denial of facts is silly. Dont be a DENIER.
Click to expand...


What facts have I denied? 

If you're so gullible as to believe a silly youtube video, utterly unsupported, that's your choice. Just don't presume to foist your gullibility on others.


----------



## Death Angel

Hollie said:


> If you're so gullible as to believe a silly youtube video, utterly unsupported, that's your choice. Just don't presume to foist your gullibility on others


Tou should do your homework science denier. Do you think the intent of that video, or the article was to prove the flood?
Most idiots/tards think the flood was caused solely by 40 days of rain, but the truth is, GOD says he "opened the fountains of the deep."

The existence of this great body of water is FACT. Deny all you want, denier.

Rare Diamond Confirms That Earth's Mantle Holds an Ocean's Worth of Water

There’s as much water in Earth’s mantle as in all the oceans

Found! Hidden Ocean Locked Up Deep in Earth's Mantle


----------



## alang1216

Death Angel said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're so gullible as to believe a silly youtube video, utterly unsupported, that's your choice. Just don't presume to foist your gullibility on others
> 
> 
> 
> Tou should do your homework science denier. Do you think the intent of that video, or the article was to prove the flood?
> Most idiots/tards think the flood was caused solely by 40 days of rain, but the truth is, GOD says he "opened the fountains of the deep."
> 
> The existence of this great body of water is FACT. Deny all you want, denier.
> 
> Rare Diamond Confirms That Earth's Mantle Holds an Ocean's Worth of Water
> 
> There’s as much water in Earth’s mantle as in all the oceans
> 
> Found! Hidden Ocean Locked Up Deep in Earth's Mantle
Click to expand...

There is no 'ocean' underground.  There is plenty of h2o but it is not collected into a single water body.  Physics says it ain't so.  To use the sponge analogy, to get the water out you'd have to squeeze the earth and there is no force in nature that could do that without destroying the planet.


----------



## Death Angel

alang1216 said:


> There is no 'ocean' underground. There is plenty of h2o but it is not collected into a single water body. Physics says it ain't so. To use the sponge analogy, to get the water out you'd have to squeeze the earth and there is no force in nature that could do that without destroying the planet.


That's NOT how it works. Liquid water is converted to a solid form of high temperature ice, just waiting to be released. Think butane in your lighter. Think oil well. Thank God tonight that he keeps it all under control.


----------



## fncceo

Down ... down ... down ...






Where The Mole People live ...


----------



## Tax Man

The real problem is the ark that held thousands of animal pairs being only 50 feet long and 35 feet wide. And please do not forget the bible was created and written by humans to coerce slaves to not rebel or kill their masters or a multitude of other "crimes".


----------



## fncceo

Tax Man said:


> the bible was created and written by humans to coerce slaves to not rebel



Ancient slaves were literate?


----------



## Death Angel

It


Tax Man said:


> The real problem is the ark that held thousands of animal pairs being only 50 feet long and 35 feet wide. And please do not forget the bible was created and written by humans to coerce slaves to not rebel or kill their masters or a multitude of other "crimes".


 Was about 500 feet long moron. The rest is more tard nonsense.


----------



## Death Angel




----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Death Angel said:


> "The fountains of the deep."
> 
> The Great Flood occurred, not only because of the rain, ite also says the earth "opened up" and released the "fountains of the deep."
> 
> Another huge OCEAN deep within gave up its water for a time.
> 
> Did Geologists Discover ‘Fountains of the Deep’ From Genesis Flood?


Haha, this shit always cracks me up. Yes, sit around waiting for scientists to discover things, then claim the Bible showed us already and you knew all along. Good stuff.


----------



## fncceo

Death Angel said:


>



You realize that's a cartoon, not a photograph, right?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Tax Man said:


> The real problem is the ark that held thousands of animal pairs being only 50 feet long and 35 feet wide. And please do not forget the bible was created and written by humans to coerce slaves to not rebel or kill their masters or a multitude of other "crimes".


The ark wasn't even big enough to hold every species of insect.


----------



## fncceo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real problem is the ark that held thousands of animal pairs being only 50 feet long and 35 feet wide. And please do not forget the bible was created and written by humans to coerce slaves to not rebel or kill their masters or a multitude of other "crimes".
> 
> 
> 
> The ark wasn't even big enough to hold every species of insect.
Click to expand...


That's why these guys didn't make the cut...  thank heaven!


----------



## edthecynic

Death Angel said:


> It
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real problem is the ark that held thousands of animal pairs being only 50 feet long and 35 feet wide. And please do not forget the bible was created and written by humans to coerce slaves to not rebel or kill their masters or a multitude of other "crimes".
> 
> 
> 
> Was about 500 feet long moron. The rest is more tard nonsense.
Click to expand...

Sure it was! 

Noah's Ark: Sea Trials
Whether a wooden ship the size of Noah's Ark could be made seaworthy is in grave doubt. At 137 meters (450 feet), Noah's Ark would be the largest wooden vessel ever confirmed to have been built. In recorded history, some dozen or so wooden ships have been constructed over 90 meters; few have been successful. Even so, these wooden ships had a great advantage over Noah's Ark: their curved hull shapes. Stress loads are distributed much more efficiently over three dimensionally curved surfaces than they are over flat surfaces. But even with this advantage, real-world large wooden ships have had severe problems. The sailing ships the 100 meter _Wyoming_ (sunk in 1924) and 99 meter _Santiago_ (sunk in 1918) were so large that they flexed in the water, opening up seams in the hull and leaking. The 102 meter British warships _HMS Orlando_ and _HMS Mersey_ had such bad structural problems that they were scrapped in 1871 and 1875 after only a few years in service. Most of the largest wooden ships were, like Noah's Ark, unpowered barges. Yet even those built in modern times, such as the 103 meter _Pretoria_ in 1901, required substantial amounts of steel reinforcement; and even then needed steam-powered pumps to fight the constant flex-induced leaking.

Even in the world of legend, only two other ships are said to have approached the size claimed for Noah's Ark. One was the Greek trireme _Tessarakonteres_ at 127 meters, the length and existence of which is known only by the accounts of Plutarch and Athenaeus. Plutarch said of her:

_But this ship was merely for show; and since she differed little from a stationary edifice on land, being meant for exhibition and not for use, she was moved only with difficulty and danger._

The other example is the largest of the Chinese treasure ships built by the admiral Zheng He in the 15th century, matching Noah's 137 meters, but only in the highest estimates. Many believe the biggest ships Zheng took with him on his seven voyages were no bigger than half that size, and moreover, that they remained behind in rivers and were not suitably seaworthy for ocean travels.

The long and the short of it — no pun intended — is that there's no precedent for a wooden ship the size of Noah's Ark being seaworthy, and plenty of naval engineering experience telling us that it wouldn't be expected to work. Even if pumps had been installed and all hands worked round the clock pumping, the Ark certainly would have leaked catastrophically, filled with water, and capsized.


----------



## Death Angel

Science sure does upset the God Haters!


----------



## PK1

Death Angel said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s so silly
> 
> 
> 
> Tour ignorance and denial of facts is silly. Dont be a DENIER.
Click to expand...

*Cherry-picked facts* that have a spurious correlation (if even that) proves NOTHING.
You need to learn how science works and throw away your ancient Bible.


----------



## Hollie

Death Angel said:


> Science sure does upset the God Haters!



No. Science is simply not concerned with supernaturalism. Nothing in nature depicts supernaturalism. Every discovery in science has had a natural explanation.

Can you identify a single instance of supernaturalism - something in the natural world that has supernatural underpinnings. Belief in magic and superstition is irrational. There's no reason to accept magic and supernaturalism in place of well defined knowledge of the natural world.


----------



## bodecea

Death Angel said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're so gullible as to believe a silly youtube video, utterly unsupported, that's your choice. Just don't presume to foist your gullibility on others
> 
> 
> 
> Tou should do your homework science denier. Do you think the intent of that video, or the article was to prove the flood?
> Most idiots/tards think the flood was caused solely by 40 days of rain, but the truth is, GOD says he "opened the fountains of the deep."
> 
> The existence of this great body of water is FACT. Deny all you want, denier.
> 
> Rare Diamond Confirms That Earth's Mantle Holds an Ocean's Worth of Water
> 
> There’s as much water in Earth’s mantle as in all the oceans
> 
> Found! Hidden Ocean Locked Up Deep in Earth's Mantle
Click to expand...


----------



## Death Angel

Funny watching the science deniers scramble.

Btw, a pic of Obama doesn't help "prove" anything I guess he somehow gives "credibility" to the tards though


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Death Angel said:


> Funny watching the science deniers scramble


And yet, here you sit, copy/pasting stuff from non scientists that you don't even understand, trying to convince yourself that a fantasy, completely debunked by the science, is true. On an internet message board.

So who's scrambling?


----------



## The Irish Ram

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny watching the science deniers scramble
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, here you sit, copy/pasting stuff from non scientists that you don't even understand, trying to convince yourself that a fantasy, completely debunked by the science, is true. On an internet message board.
> 
> So who's scrambling?
Click to expand...


Science and the Bible go hand in hand.  Archaeology  and the Bible go hand in hand.  Physics and the Bible go hand in hand.
Job knew the earth was round before science declared it. He called it an orb.
Bible readers knew there were more than 4 dimensions before Hawking.  Jesus was inter-dimensional.  He could show up without opening a door. <dimension #6.  Science that.
Daniel knew the exact date that Israel would become a nation again, *and *the date Jerusalem would belong to the Jews again, thousands of years before it happened.  You can't even tell me who will win the World Cup next year...
Then there is this. The discovery of a complex digital code of creation, DNA:



> *Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project*, followed the president to the podium, stating, “It is humbling for me, and awe-inspiring, to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God.”


^
Science is smarter than you  They know evolution can't explain how every cell in your body has a 3 billion letter code.  The very first living single cell contained it.  An extremely complex code that produced it's very simple life. 
* Science* had no idea.  And it took science until the year 2000 to be able to produce a working draft of the code.  DNA is the product of design by intelligence.  < The producer of "science".   
 He calls it, creating.  We call it, finding and trying to understand it.
If you think pond scum can produce code, then it should also be able to create computer code as well.  It is so much simpler than DNA.   Next time you need to upgrade, just throw your laptop in a mud puddle and voila, Windows 15!


----------



## Manonthestreet

alang1216 said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The fountains of the deep."
> 
> The Great Flood occurred, not only because of the rain, ite also says the earth "opened up" and released the "fountains of the deep."
> 
> Another huge OCEAN deep within gave up its water for a time.
> 
> Did Geologists Discover ‘Fountains of the Deep’ From Genesis Flood?
> 
> 
> 
> Any global flood would have been a supernatural event.  Pure and simple.  Nature does not provide a mechanism for pulling massive amounts of water, in whatever form, buried beneath miles of rock, in any time frame less than millions of years.
Click to expand...

Earth’s Crust Is Swallowing Way More Ocean Than We Thought


----------



## Death Angel

The scoffers who reject that God released "the fountains of the deep" accept on FAITH that the universe created itself from nothing with a big bang


----------



## Hollie

Death Angel said:


> The scoffers who reject that God released "the fountains of the deep" accept on FAITH that the universe created itself from nothing with a big bang



I find it concerning that you are so easily persuaded by a YouTube video.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Manonthestreet said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The fountains of the deep."
> 
> The Great Flood occurred, not only because of the rain, ite also says the earth "opened up" and released the "fountains of the deep."
> 
> Another huge OCEAN deep within gave up its water for a time.
> 
> Did Geologists Discover ‘Fountains of the Deep’ From Genesis Flood?
> 
> 
> 
> Any global flood would have been a supernatural event.  Pure and simple.  Nature does not provide a mechanism for pulling massive amounts of water, in whatever form, buried beneath miles of rock, in any time frame less than millions of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Earth’s Crust Is Swallowing Way More Ocean Than We Thought
Click to expand...

Oops,you forgot to make a point....


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The Irish Ram said:


> Science is smarter than you They know evolution can't explain how every cell in your body has a 3 billion letter code.


Because that is not what evolution aims to explain. So that's a stupid thing to say. I ignored the rest . I will not hear lectures from someone who doesn't even have a fundamental grasp of the scientific theories he criticizes. I don't take lectures from my dog on calculus, either.


----------



## Hollie

The Irish Ram said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny watching the science deniers scramble
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, here you sit, copy/pasting stuff from non scientists that you don't even understand, trying to convince yourself that a fantasy, completely debunked by the science, is true. On an internet message board.
> 
> So who's scrambling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science and the Bible go hand in hand.  Archaeology  and the Bible go hand in hand.  Physics and the Bible go hand in hand.
> Job knew the earth was round before science declared it. He called it an orb.
> Bible readers knew there were more than 4 dimensions before Hawking.  Jesus was inter-dimensional.  He could show up without opening a door. <dimension #6.  Science that.
> Daniel knew the exact date that Israel would become a nation again, *and *the date Jerusalem would belong to the Jews again, thousands of years before it happened.  You can't even tell me who will win the World Cup next year...
> Then there is this. The discovery of a complex digital code of creation, DNA:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project*, followed the president to the podium, stating, “It is humbling for me, and awe-inspiring, to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^
> Science is smarter than you  They know evolution can't explain how every cell in your body has a 3 billion letter code.  The very first living single cell contained it.  An extremely complex code that produced it's very simple life.
> * Science* had no idea.  And it took science until the year 2000 to be able to produce a working draft of the code.  DNA is the product of design by intelligence.  < The producer of "science".
> He calls it, creating.  We call it, finding and trying to understand it.
> If you think pond scum can produce code, then it should also be able to create computer code as well.  It is so much simpler than DNA.   Next time you need to upgrade, just throw your laptop in a mud puddle and voila, Windows 15!
Click to expand...



As a science text, the bibles are pretty, well, you know, horrible.

Solid, liquid, gas, plasma ... the four states of matter. If you can't differentiate between these, you've got no business in science and neither do the bibles.

While great Hindu philosophers have done even more with mathematics, great Greek pantheistic philosophers more with medicine, great Buddhist (and Taoist!) philosophers more with chemistry ... and every last one of them has been superceded by entirely secular scholars as the boundaries of knowledge have been pushed back by specialized researchers. 

The day of the pre-eminent religious/philosophical polymath has come and gone. I don't call it good or bad. I call it truth.

Actually, the ancient Greek philosopher Pythagoras was among the first to propose the sphericity of the Earth in the 6th century BC, ß---- before the invention of Christianity), using among his proofs how the sail of a ship could be observed to disappear over the curvature of the Earth. (26) 

Plato also espoused a spherical Earth in the _Phaedra_, and his student Aristotle gave his reasoning in his book _On the Heavens _in 350 BC. His proof rested on the facts that persons living in southern lands see southern constellations higher above the horizon than those living in northern lands, that the shadow of the Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round, and that since objects fall to Earth towards its center means that if it were constructed of small bits of matter originally, these parts would naturally settle into a spherical shape. His demonstration was so compelling that a spherical Earth was the central assumption of all subsequent philosophers of the Classical era. He also used the curved phases of the moon to argue that the Moon must also be a sphere like the Earth.  


In fact, the global nature of the earth was clearly demonstrated by Eratothenes 2,200 years ago (by comparing shadow lengths in Alexandria and Syene at high noon).

But I do point out that it was the yoke of Christianity that saddled the world with darkness and ignorance and superstition, and those scars are with us today. Christianity did more to destroy the gains made by humanity in the medical sciences, astronomy, and mechanics than any other entity.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is smarter than you They know evolution can't explain how every cell in your body has a 3 billion letter code.
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is not what evolution aims to explain. So that's a stupid thing to say. I ignored the rest . I will not hear lectures from someone who doesn't even have a fundamental grasp of the scientific theories he criticizes. I don't take lectures from my dog on calculus, either.
Click to expand...


Evolution: 

the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.


the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
It's apparent that you don't listen.
Ignoring makes you ignorant.
You have no idea of my credentials. 
Science and God. No need to exclude one to prove the other.  They are mutual. Complex DNA, in single cell life, just shoots the shit out of the simple to complex theory.  And, as far as diversifying, every time an evolutionary  found a misshapen tooth they created a misshapen human to go with it.   Your Father is God Almighty, not Cheetah:






and lastly, maybe *you should* listen to your dog...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The Irish Ram said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is smarter than you They know evolution can't explain how every cell in your body has a 3 billion letter code.
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is not what evolution aims to explain. So that's a stupid thing to say. I ignored the rest . I will not hear lectures from someone who doesn't even have a fundamental grasp of the scientific theories he criticizes. I don't take lectures from my dog on calculus, either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution:
> 
> the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
> 
> 
> the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
> It's apparent that you don't listen.
> Ignoring makes you ignorant.
> You have no idea of my credentials.
> Science and God. No need to exclude one to prove the other.  They are mutual. Complex DNA, in single cell life, just shoots the shit out of the simple to complex theory.  And, as far as diversifying, every time an evolutionary  found a misshapen tooth they created a misshapen human to go with it.   Your Father is God Almighty, not Cheetah:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and lastly, maybe *you should* listen to your dog...
Click to expand...

You, of course, meant the Theory of Evolution, and you were in error. You're not fooling anyone.

And the word you are looking for is "selection". And yes, selection can explain the presentation of DNA. You should read up. Your commentary shows you know less than nothing about any of these topics, and you should refrain from commenting on them again until you know more.


----------



## alang1216

Manonthestreet said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The fountains of the deep."
> 
> The Great Flood occurred, not only because of the rain, ite also says the earth "opened up" and released the "fountains of the deep."
> 
> Another huge OCEAN deep within gave up its water for a time.
> 
> Did Geologists Discover ‘Fountains of the Deep’ From Genesis Flood?
> 
> 
> 
> Any global flood would have been a supernatural event.  Pure and simple.  Nature does not provide a mechanism for pulling massive amounts of water, in whatever form, buried beneath miles of rock, in any time frame less than millions of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Earth’s Crust Is Swallowing Way More Ocean Than We Thought
Click to expand...

Good article, you should read it.
From your article:
the water chemically transforms into “wet rocks,” a hydrous mineral that gets locked inside the plate and pulled deeper into the earth’s crust.​


----------



## alang1216

Death Angel said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no 'ocean' underground. There is plenty of h2o but it is not collected into a single water body. Physics says it ain't so. To use the sponge analogy, to get the water out you'd have to squeeze the earth and there is no force in nature that could do that without destroying the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> That's NOT how it works. Liquid water is converted to a solid form of high temperature ice, just waiting to be released. Think butane in your lighter. Think oil well. Thank God tonight that he keeps it all under control.
Click to expand...

Your "high temperature ice" would still have a density similar or even less than liquid water.  If it was not bound within rock, gravity would push it to the surface through the overlying rock.  Salt domes form that way.  The difference is that liquid water would not be buried in the first place, salt would be since it is solid.  Try getting a Black & Tan with the dark (less dense) beer on the bottom.


----------



## Manonthestreet

alang1216 said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The fountains of the deep."
> 
> The Great Flood occurred, not only because of the rain, ite also says the earth "opened up" and released the "fountains of the deep."
> 
> Another huge OCEAN deep within gave up its water for a time.
> 
> Did Geologists Discover ‘Fountains of the Deep’ From Genesis Flood?
> 
> 
> 
> Any global flood would have been a supernatural event.  Pure and simple.  Nature does not provide a mechanism for pulling massive amounts of water, in whatever form, buried beneath miles of rock, in any time frame less than millions of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Earth’s Crust Is Swallowing Way More Ocean Than We Thought
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good article, you should read it.
> From your article:
> the water chemically transforms into “wet rocks,” a hydrous mineral that gets locked inside the plate and pulled deeper into the earth’s crust.​
Click to expand...

And how long does that process take and note if I recall the volume is greater than total of current oceans combined


----------



## alang1216

Manonthestreet said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The fountains of the deep."
> 
> The Great Flood occurred, not only because of the rain, ite also says the earth "opened up" and released the "fountains of the deep."
> 
> Another huge OCEAN deep within gave up its water for a time.
> 
> Did Geologists Discover ‘Fountains of the Deep’ From Genesis Flood?
> 
> 
> 
> Any global flood would have been a supernatural event.  Pure and simple.  Nature does not provide a mechanism for pulling massive amounts of water, in whatever form, buried beneath miles of rock, in any time frame less than millions of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Earth’s Crust Is Swallowing Way More Ocean Than We Thought
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good article, you should read it.
> From your article:
> the water chemically transforms into “wet rocks,” a hydrous mineral that gets locked inside the plate and pulled deeper into the earth’s crust.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how long does that process take and note if I recall the volume is greater than total of current oceans combined
Click to expand...

The Texas salt domes are at least 65 million years old and most have yet to reach the surface.


----------



## Manonthestreet

alang1216 said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The fountains of the deep."
> 
> The Great Flood occurred, not only because of the rain, ite also says the earth "opened up" and released the "fountains of the deep."
> 
> Another huge OCEAN deep within gave up its water for a time.
> 
> Did Geologists Discover ‘Fountains of the Deep’ From Genesis Flood?
> 
> 
> 
> Any global flood would have been a supernatural event.  Pure and simple.  Nature does not provide a mechanism for pulling massive amounts of water, in whatever form, buried beneath miles of rock, in any time frame less than millions of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Earth’s Crust Is Swallowing Way More Ocean Than We Thought
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good article, you should read it.
> From your article:
> the water chemically transforms into “wet rocks,” a hydrous mineral that gets locked inside the plate and pulled deeper into the earth’s crust.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how long does that process take and note if I recall the volume is greater than total of current oceans combined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Texas salt domes are at least 65 million years old and most have yet to reach the surface.
Click to expand...

Which proves what......


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Manonthestreet said:


> And how long does that process take


I'm going to guess, less than 3000 years. Can we at least agree on that and toss this ridiculous idea in the garbage, where it belongs?


----------



## alang1216

Manonthestreet said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Texas salt domes are at least 65 million years old and most have yet to reach the surface.
> 
> 
> 
> Which proves what......
Click to expand...

Only that geologic processes operate at geologic time scales.  These things operate over millions of years, not over a period of 40 days.


----------



## abu afak

The Irish Ram said:


> ...Science and God. No need to exclude one to prove the other.  They are mutual. Complex DNA, in single cell life, just shoots the shit out of the simple to complex theory.  And, as far as diversifying, every time an evolutionary  found a misshapen tooth they created a misshapen human to go with it.
> Your Father is God Almighty, not Cheetah:


WTF is wrong with you goofy?
There is NO Evidence, much less proof, of god/gods.
No reason to bring it/him/they in.
YOU are "Exclusive of science".

Then please pick your god/dog because there are so many different gods/creation Myths.
At least 75% of believers are necessarily wrong even if one stepped in it.
`


----------



## The Irish Ram

abu afak said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Science and God. No need to exclude one to prove the other.  They are mutual. Complex DNA, in single cell life, just shoots the shit out of the simple to complex theory.  And, as far as diversifying, every time an evolutionary  found a misshapen tooth they created a misshapen human to go with it.
> Your Father is God Almighty, not Cheetah:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is wrong with you goofy?
> There is NO Evidence, much less proof, of god/gods.The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation....His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an INTELLIGENCE of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
> No reason to bring it/him/they in.
> YOU are "Exclusive of science".
> 
> Then please pick your god/dog because there are so many different gods/creation Myths.
> At least 75% of believers are necessarily wrong even if one stepped in it.
> `
Click to expand...


Let's ask Einstein:
"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation....His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an INTELLIGENCE of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."
There ya go... The compatibility of science and God.

And here is the evidence you seek in proving God:
He compiled a book that is 1/4 future predictions spanning thousands of years.  And they have all been spot on.  Over 10,000 of them. That requires being able to traverse dimensions (that science *just* found, and that Christ was described in the Bible as doing 2 thousand years before Hawking).

Now, keeping in mind that if you are wrong we get to stone you to death, tell me what horse will win the  next Breeders Cup . Better yet, increase your odds. Ask your dog...


----------



## abu afak

The Irish Ram said:


> *Let's ask Einstein:*
> "The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation....His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an INTELLIGENCE of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."
> There ya go... The compatibility of science and God.
> 
> And here is the evidence you seek in proving God:
> He compiled a book that is 1/4 future predictions spanning thousands of years.  And they have all been spot on.  Over 10,000 of them. That requires being able to traverse dimensions (that science *just* found, and that Christ was described in the Bible as doing 2 thousand years before Hawking).
> 
> Keeping in mind that if you are wrong we get to stone you to death, tell me what horse will win the  next Breeders Cup . Better yet, increase your odds. Ask your dog...


You're an Insane Jerkoff.

But yes, let's ask Einstein Directly. (instead of quote mining his awe at natural law he _figuratively_ referred to as 'intelligence')

*"..The word God is for me Nothing more than the expression and product of human Weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still Primitive Legends which are nevertheless pretty Childish. *
_*No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.*
"These [...] interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me *the Jewish religion like ALL other religions is an incarnation of the most Childish Superstitions*.".."_

- Einstein letter to Gutkind, 1954

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...ience.religion​

Gameover Clown

`


----------



## The Irish Ram

As a young man born of atheist Jewish parents, Einstein tried to follow strict Judaism  for a time in his life, but found it a false religion.  He did not believe in a God that followed Jews around and inserted Himself into their daily lives.  He ended up rejecting Yaweh,  Not God.  And resented being called an atheist.  He also dismissed the theory that humans and natural law were a product of  chance:
  "The religious inclination lies in the dim consciousness that dwells in humans that all nature, including the humans in it, is in no way an accidental game, but a work of lawfulness that there is a fundamental cause of all existence.
To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man".

_“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit, …That superior reasoning power forms my idea of God._

_“This firm belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.”

“I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts.”

“What I am really interested in knowing is whether God could have created the world in a different way."
_
He understood intelligent design.  It was his job. And this was his conviction:
_My God created laws… His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws.”_


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The Irish Ram said:


> As a young man born of atheist Jewish parents, Einstein tried to follow strict Judaism  for a time in his life, but found it a false religion.  He did not believe in a God that followed Jews around and inserted Himself into their daily lives.  He ended up rejecting Yaweh,  Not God.  And resented being called an atheist.  He also dismissed the theory that humans and natural law were a product of  chance:
> "The religious inclination lies in the dim consciousness that dwells in humans that all nature, including the humans in it, is in no way an accidental game, but a work of lawfulness that there is a fundamental cause of all existence.
> To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man".
> 
> _“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit, …That superior reasoning power forms my idea of God._
> 
> _“This firm belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.”
> 
> “I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts.”
> 
> “What I am really interested in knowing is whether God could have created the world in a different way."
> _
> He understood intelligent design.  It was his job. And this was his conviction:
> _My God created laws… His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws.”_


Nobody should respond to this debunked nonsense regarding Einstein.


----------



## The Irish Ram

More of Einstein's own words:

*“Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.”*
_
*“The divine reveals itself in the physical world.”*
_
*“This firm belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.”*

As far as science and religion going hand in hand Einstein said this:
_
* “A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”*
_
And* this* is what he says about people like you:
_
*"There is harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, yet there are people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me to support such views."*
_
People like you pissed Einstein off... 
_*
*_


----------



## PK1

The Irish Ram said:


> More of Einstein's own words:
> 
> *“Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.”*
> _
> *“The divine reveals itself in the physical world.”*
> _
> *“This firm belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.”*
> 
> As far as science and religion going hand in hand Einstein said this:
> _
> * “A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”*
> _
> And* this* is what he says about people like you:
> _
> *"There is harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, yet there are people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me to support such views."*
> _
> People like you pissed Einstein off


As a pure scientist, Einstein was *agnostic*.

_Religious beliefs. *Einstein* used many labels to describe his religious views, including "*agnostic*", "religious nonbeliever" and a "pantheistic" believer in "Spinoza's God". *Einstein* believed the problem of God was the "most difficult in the world"—a question that could not be answered "simply with yes or no."_

*Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Einstein was an atheist, and barely even a deist, if at all. He often referred to the concept of god euphemistically, but he made it very clear he had no belief in a personal god, and even found the idea of deism utterly useless.


----------



## Death Angel

With all the "funny" I've received from the God deniers in this thread I can see I hit a nerve. Your "funny" are a nervous laugh -- whistling past the graveyard.

In your heart, you know that your own existence is proof of your Creator. The universe you see is proof of a Creator.

Deny today, but tomorrow is the Day of Judgment.


----------



## Hollie

Death Angel said:


> With all the "funny" I've received from the God deniers in this thread I can see I hit a nerve. Your "funny" are a nervous laugh -- whistling past the graveyard.
> 
> In your heart, you know that your own existence is proof of your Creator. The universe you see is proof of a Creator.
> 
> Deny today, but tomorrow is the Day of Judgment.



The universally sustaining benediction of the angry religionist:

“*You’ll get yours”*


----------



## abu afak

*“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”*

― Albert Einstein, Albert Einstein: The Human Side
_
_


----------



## fncceo

Death Angel said:


> but tomorrow is the Day of Judgment.


It was OK ... but not as good as the original


----------



## cnm

Death Angel said:


> Liquid water is converted to a solid form of high temperature ice, just waiting to be released.


As opposed to a liquid form of high temperature ice?


----------



## The Irish Ram

abu afak said:


> *“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”*
> 
> ― Albert Einstein, Albert Einstein: The Human Side




I don't know how to convince you that Einstein did not believe in religion, but absolutely believed in God. He said so.  
He  also staunchly believed that everything was predetermined. i.e. No accidents, no what if's. So much so that quantum physics brought out his belief that, and I quote his mouth, (again):

*God does not play dice with the universe...*
Einstein went on to clarify  who he was referring to:
* ...‘The** Lord God is subtle, but malicious he is not’
*
Believe what you like.  I prefer listening to Einstein and other scientists who also believe in God.  Copernicus and Newton for instance.  And, Galileo, Bacon, Pascal, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Planck.  All major contributors to science.  All science/God compatible.


----------



## abu afak

`
Yours are all FIGURATIVE USAGES You STUPID/DISHONEST RELIGIO-BIMBO.
Mine are LITERAL/Actual beliefs.
*
"..The word God is for me Nothing more than the expression and product of human Weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still Primitive Legends which are nevertheless pretty Childish. *

_*No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.*_
_"These [...] interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me *the Jewish religion like ALL other religions is an incarnation of the most Childish Superstitions*.".."_

- Einstein letter to Gutkind, 1954

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...ience.religion​

`


----------



## The Irish Ram

In that case, who is the _Lord God_ he refers to?

def. Lord:  Someone or something having power, authority, or influence; a master or ruler.


----------



## The Irish Ram

abu afak said:


> `
> Yours are all FIGURATIVE USAGES You STUPID/DISHONEST RELIGIO-BIMBO.
> Mine are LITERAL/Actual beliefs.
> *
> "..The word God is for me Nothing more than the expression and product of human Weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still Primitive Legends which are nevertheless pretty Childish. *
> 
> _*No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.*_
> _"These [...] interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me *the Jewish religion like ALL other religions is an incarnation of the most Childish Superstitions*.".."_
> 
> - Einstein letter to Gutkind, 1954
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...ience.religion​
> 
> `



Note that he was referring to religion, the Jewish religion specifically and the other religions generally.  
The God that created the universe is the God he believed in, and said so over and over.  

We will just have to agree to disagree.   This is going nowhere.


----------



## cnm

How come you don't link your quotes? Afraid of context?


----------



## cnm

Doesn't come across as a belief in a god, particularly a moral god.
_
“The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
To make this a living force and bring it to clear consciousness is perhaps the foremost task of education.
The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action.” 
― Albert Einstein, Albert Einstein: The Human Side_​


----------



## Hollie

The Irish Ram said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Yours are all FIGURATIVE USAGES You STUPID/DISHONEST RELIGIO-BIMBO.
> Mine are LITERAL/Actual beliefs.
> *
> "..The word God is for me Nothing more than the expression and product of human Weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still Primitive Legends which are nevertheless pretty Childish. *
> 
> _*No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.*_
> _"These [...] interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me *the Jewish religion like ALL other religions is an incarnation of the most Childish Superstitions*.".."_
> 
> - Einstein letter to Gutkind, 1954
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...ience.religion​
> 
> `
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that he was referring to religion, the Jewish religion specifically and the other religions generally.
> The God that created the universe is the God he believed in, and said so over and over.
> 
> We will just have to agree to disagree.   This is going nowhere.
Click to expand...


It’s actually pretty stereotypical for religionists to cut and paste “quotes” (“argument from authority”, fallacy) in an attempt to prove their gods. You can also find “quotes” from scientists who believe in competing versions of gods. What’s missing in all the various cutting and pasting is any verification for any of the gods.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Yours are all FIGURATIVE USAGES You STUPID/DISHONEST RELIGIO-BIMBO.
> Mine are LITERAL/Actual beliefs.
> *
> "..The word God is for me Nothing more than the expression and product of human Weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still Primitive Legends which are nevertheless pretty Childish. *
> 
> _*No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.*_
> _"These [...] interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me *the Jewish religion like ALL other religions is an incarnation of the most Childish Superstitions*.".."_
> 
> - Einstein letter to Gutkind, 1954
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...ience.religion​
> 
> `
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that he was referring to religion, the Jewish religion specifically and the other religions generally.
> The God that created the universe is the God he believed in, and said so over and over.
> 
> We will just have to agree to disagree.   This is going nowhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s actually pretty stereotypical for religionists to cut and paste “quotes” (“argument from authority”, fallacy) in an attempt to prove their gods. You can also find “quotes” from scientists who believe in competing versions of gods. What’s missing in all the various cutting and pasting is any verification for any of the gods.
Click to expand...


If Einstein didn't believe in God, he sure was adept at describing Him, and often.
Einstein said:
*"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man".*

^ All you have to do is ask yourself if Einstein was someone who was seriously involved in the pursuit of science.  If the answer is yes, then he was convinced, not maybe, but convinced, in a spirit that is manifest.  Listening to his words instead of interpreting them is a simple solution to the question of Einstein's beliefs.  
As to simple solutions, Einstein felt that:
*"When the solution is simple, God is answering".*

And Hollie, I could take the the time to type all his quotes,   but you know what Einstein said:
*"God always takes the simplest way".*


----------



## abu afak

*Einstein and God and Quote Mining*
Einstein and God and Quote Mining

Quote mining Christians like to pull this trick a lot. *They take quotes out of context, misusing Einstein’s sense of humor and Poetic use of the word “god.” They say, “Einstein was religious!” when all evidence–when looked at in the correct context–proves he was Not.*

Those who like to pull the “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind” quote out of their asses don’t know when he said, why he said it, where he said it, or who he was saying it to. They know the quote, they don’t know the source. If they actually _read _Einstein’s letters (available at Amazon.com), they’d understand his sense of humor, his love of irony and sarcasm, and the poetic use of “god” when speaking of the universe.

(When Christians try to claim Einstein as one of their own, they often forget he was Jewish–a fact that puts him squarely in Hell, standing right next to Hitler, Jim Jones and Stalin. They forget that.)

And so, to provide even _more_ evidence against this ridiculous idea, here’s a new letter–that you can read for yourself–that makes it very clear what Einstein thought of religion.

No quote mining. No out-of-context bullshit. Just plain speaking from the horse’s mouth.​`


----------



## The Irish Ram

How do you forget some one is Jewish when it comes from the horse's own mouth?
Einstein said:
*"I am by heritage a Jew, by citizenship a Swiss, and by makeup a human being, and only a human being, without any special attachment to any state or national entity whatsoever."
*
You are laying it on a little thick now.  No one is sending Einstein to hell.   His Jewish heritage has already been discussed. 

Did you know that Bible readers knew there was a beginning long before Einstein realized it and told the rest of you?   In 1931!
 His constant universe was anything but. He would just create things that didn't exist to make his equations work. It wasn't until the 1930's that *non* Bible readers were enlightened.  Hubble proved to Einstein an expanding universe and Einstein called it the bane of his existence. For the first time in his life he realized there really was a beginning.  He had to add a new found dimension, space time.  Had he also added the dimension that described Christ twice in the Bible,  Einstein would have found what Hawking did.  More dimensions.  No need to make them up anymore.  Or he could have just asked the notable scientist, Nachnamides who found ten just by reading Genesis in the 1200's.

Here are some other scientific Bible knowledge tidbits that I cut and pasted for Hollie:

The Bible: The Earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:23) Science then: The Earth is a flat disk. Science now: The Earth is a sphere

The Bible: Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). Science then: Only 1100 stars. Science now: Incalculable number of stars

The Bible: Free float of Earth in space (Job 26:7). Science then: Earth sat on a large animal. Science now: Free float of Earth in space

The Bible: Creation made of invisible elements (Hebrews 11:3). Science then: Science is mostly ignorant on the subject. Science now: Creation made of invisible elements (atoms)

The Bible: Each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41). Science then: All stars were the same. Science now: Each star is different

The Bible: Light moves (Job 38:19-20). Science then: Light was fixed in place. Science now: Light moves

The Bible: Air has weight (Job 28:25). Science then: Air was weightless. Science now: Air has weight

The Bible: Winds blow in cyclones (Ecclesiastes 1:6). Science then: Winds blew straight. Science now: Winds blow in cyclones

The Bible: Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11). Science then: Sick people must be bled. Science now: Blood is the source of life and health

The Bible: Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains (2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6). Science then: The ocean floor was flat. Science now: Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains

The Bible: Ocean contains springs (Job 38:16). Science then: Ocean fed only by rivers and rain. Science now: Ocean contains springs

The Bible: When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). Science then: Hands washed in still water. Science now: When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water.

And on the scientific horizon:
Dimensions can be torn, burnt, rolled up... so sayeth the Lord anyway.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The Irish Ram said:


> Did you know that Bible readers knew there was a beginning long before Einstein realized it and told the rest of you? In 1931!


And readers of Harry Potter know there is a Hogwarts. Good for all of you.


----------



## james bond

The biggest evidence is observable.  The Earth is 3/4 covered with water on the surface.  There is no other planet or exo planet like it.  Also, I LMAO when I found Bill Nye, dim bulb, as he is discovered evidence for the "foundtains of the deep" and didn't even know it.  What a "dumbass atheist."  Dumbass atheist is an oxymoron isn't it?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The biggest evidence is observable.  The Earth is 3/4 covered with water on the surface.  There is no other planet or exo planet like it.  Also, I LMAO when I found Bill Nye, dim bulb, as he is discovered evidence for the "foundtains of the deep" and didn't even know it.  What a "dumbass atheist."  Dumbass atheist is an oxymoron isn't it?



Odd that the silly “fountains of the deep” doesn't appear in any of the relevant science literature. Could it be that creationists / Flat Earthers are simply pressing Christian fundamentalist dogma?


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> The biggest evidence is observable.  The Earth is 3/4 covered with water on the surface.  There is no other planet or exo planet like it.  Also, I LMAO when I found Bill Nye, dim bulb, as he is discovered evidence for the "foundtains of the deep" and didn't even know it.  What a "dumbass atheist."  Dumbass atheist is an oxymoron isn't it?


I viewed it but didn't see anything in it that supported "foundtains of the deep" or anything Biblical.  What did this "dumbass atheist" miss?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> There is no other planet or exo planet like it.


Made-up bullshit


----------



## LittleNipper

alang1216 said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The fountains of the deep."
> 
> The Great Flood occurred, not only because of the rain, ite also says the earth "opened up" and released the "fountains of the deep."
> 
> Another huge OCEAN deep within gave up its water for a time.
> 
> Did Geologists Discover ‘Fountains of the Deep’ From Genesis Flood?
> 
> 
> 
> Any global flood would have been a supernatural event.  Pure and simple.  Nature does not provide a mechanism for pulling massive amounts of water, in whatever form, buried beneath miles of rock, in any time frame less than millions of years.
Click to expand...

And this is why the FLOOD must be denied by atheists. To accept it happened would prove GOD to a degree that would eliminate all excuses.


----------



## alang1216

LittleNipper said:


> And this is why the FLOOD must be denied by atheists. To accept it happened would prove GOD to a degree that would eliminate all excuses.


The flood is denied by me because there is no evidence nor mechanism for it.  Since there is neither, you'd have to prove GOD *before* I'd accept it.  Reminds me of the old joke: Who you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?


----------



## Taz

Death Angel said:


> "The fountains of the deep."
> 
> The Great Flood occurred, not only because of the rain, ite also says the earth "opened up" and released the "fountains of the deep."
> 
> Another huge OCEAN deep within gave up its water for a time.
> 
> Did Geologists Discover ‘Fountains of the Deep’ From Genesis Flood?


From a biblical site, ya sure.

So why isn’t there any geologic evidence?


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no other planet or exo planet like it.
> 
> 
> 
> Made-up bullshit
Click to expand...




alang1216 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is why the FLOOD must be denied by atheists. To accept it happened would prove GOD to a degree that would eliminate all excuses.
> 
> 
> 
> The flood is denied by me because there is no evidence nor mechanism for it.  Since there is neither, you'd have to prove GOD *before* I'd accept it.  Reminds me of the old joke: Who you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
Click to expand...

May your "honest eyes" consider the following without bias: Geological Evidences for a Flood


----------



## LittleNipper

Compelling evidence for the FLOOD of Noah: 

The traditional view held by geologists is that the Yellowstone petrified tree formations represent many forests which grew one after the other. Each took hundreds of years to grow before it was buried by volcanic ash and slides of volcanic breccia (sharp-edged chunks of volcanic rock cemented to form a solid rock). Then another forest grew on top of it, only to suffer a similar fate, until perhaps as many as fifty to sixty-five forests had been buried and petrified. This explanation has been accepted without question for almost a century. However, recent detailed research has brought to light much evidence that contradicts this traditional view.

Dr. Harold Coffin has conducted careful studies over a number of years on all aspects of the Specimen Ridge formations. Some of the facts that do not fit the picture of forests' being buried where they grew are as follows:9

a. Tree roots abruptly terminating or broken.

b. Almost all trees completely stripped of bark and limbs.

c. Small trees upright, unbroken (a breccia flow would push them over).

d. Ring patterns of neighboring trees do not match.

e. Both upright and prone trees lined up as if by water current.

f. No valid evidence of soil layers where trees grew.

g. Absolutely no evidence of animals found where soil layers should be; also, very few cones found.

h. Many examples of trees overlapping with roots on one located at a level part-way up the trunk of another.

i. Broad leaves found where tree trunks are only conifers.

j. Pollen scarce and not of same kind as the tree trunks.

These and other facts strongly contradict the uniformitarian view. The evidence better fits the view that trees were ripped up and transported from another location by water and dumped in place at the same time that repeated volcanic eruptions were layering the area with ash and breccia. The evidence supports the view that this happened rapidly, not slowly over periods of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> And this is why the FLOOD must be denied by atheists.


Utter nonsense. It is rejected by both atheists and many Christians as a myth, since the evidence all contradicts it. All of it. If there were evidence of a global flood, then atheists would accept it, and merely reject magical sky daddies as the explanation. So no, what you just said is stupid.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Compelling evidence for the FLOOD of Noah:
> 
> The traditional view held by geologists is that the Yellowstone petrified tree formations represent many forests which grew one after the other. Each took hundreds of years to grow before it was buried by volcanic ash and slides of volcanic breccia (sharp-edged chunks of volcanic rock cemented to form a solid rock). Then another forest grew on top of it, only to suffer a similar fate, until perhaps as many as fifty to sixty-five forests had been buried and petrified. This explanation has been accepted without question for almost a century. However, recent detailed research has brought to light much evidence that contradicts this traditional view.
> 
> Dr. Harold Coffin has conducted careful studies over a number of years on all aspects of the Specimen Ridge formations. Some of the facts that do not fit the picture of forests' being buried where they grew are as follows:9
> 
> a. Tree roots abruptly terminating or broken.
> 
> b. Almost all trees completely stripped of bark and limbs.
> 
> c. Small trees upright, unbroken (a breccia flow would push them over).
> 
> d. Ring patterns of neighboring trees do not match.
> 
> e. Both upright and prone trees lined up as if by water current.
> 
> f. No valid evidence of soil layers where trees grew.
> 
> g. Absolutely no evidence of animals found where soil layers should be; also, very few cones found.
> 
> h. Many examples of trees overlapping with roots on one located at a level part-way up the trunk of another.
> 
> i. Broad leaves found where tree trunks are only conifers.
> 
> j. Pollen scarce and not of same kind as the tree trunks.
> 
> These and other facts strongly contradict the uniformitarian view. The evidence better fits the view that trees were ripped up and transported from another location by water and dumped in place at the same time that repeated volcanic eruptions were layering the area with ash and breccia. The evidence supports the view that this happened rapidly, not slowly over periods of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years.


Um...hey professor...observations of trees in what amounts to .0001% of the earth's surface is not evidence for a global  flood. Stop saying stupid shit!!!


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is why the FLOOD must be denied by atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> Utter nonsense. It is rejected by both atheists and many Christians as a myth, since the evidence all contradicts it. All of it. If there were evidence of a global flood, then atheists would accept it, and merely reject magical sky daddies as the explanation. So no, what you just said is stupid.
Click to expand...

No, it's not utter nonsense. It's rejected by ALL atheists and some people who call themselves "Christian." The evidence is mounting regardless of your opinion. Atheists will not accept the FLOOD unless they become saved (or at least acknowledge the probability of GOD). In which case, they are no longer atheists and don't count according to your logic. I know of several in that regard who now accept the FLOOD and are Christian. Atheists cannot accept the FLOOD because it would vindicate the Bible in the eyes of the world, and make atheists seem stubborn and foolish.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compelling evidence for the FLOOD of Noah:
> 
> The traditional view held by geologists is that the Yellowstone petrified tree formations represent many forests which grew one after the other. Each took hundreds of years to grow before it was buried by volcanic ash and slides of volcanic breccia (sharp-edged chunks of volcanic rock cemented to form a solid rock). Then another forest grew on top of it, only to suffer a similar fate, until perhaps as many as fifty to sixty-five forests had been buried and petrified. This explanation has been accepted without question for almost a century. However, recent detailed research has brought to light much evidence that contradicts this traditional view.
> 
> Dr. Harold Coffin has conducted careful studies over a number of years on all aspects of the Specimen Ridge formations. Some of the facts that do not fit the picture of forests' being buried where they grew are as follows:9
> 
> a. Tree roots abruptly terminating or broken.
> 
> b. Almost all trees completely stripped of bark and limbs.
> 
> c. Small trees upright, unbroken (a breccia flow would push them over).
> 
> d. Ring patterns of neighboring trees do not match.
> 
> e. Both upright and prone trees lined up as if by water current.
> 
> f. No valid evidence of soil layers where trees grew.
> 
> g. Absolutely no evidence of animals found where soil layers should be; also, very few cones found.
> 
> h. Many examples of trees overlapping with roots on one located at a level part-way up the trunk of another.
> 
> i. Broad leaves found where tree trunks are only conifers.
> 
> j. Pollen scarce and not of same kind as the tree trunks.
> 
> These and other facts strongly contradict the uniformitarian view. The evidence better fits the view that trees were ripped up and transported from another location by water and dumped in place at the same time that repeated volcanic eruptions were layering the area with ash and breccia. The evidence supports the view that this happened rapidly, not slowly over periods of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years.
> 
> 
> 
> Um...hey professor...observations of trees in what amounts to .0001% of the earth's surface is not evidence for a global  flood. Stop saying stupid shit!!!
Click to expand...


*I rest my case!*


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no other planet or exo planet like it.
> 
> 
> 
> Made-up bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is why the FLOOD must be denied by atheists. To accept it happened would prove GOD to a degree that would eliminate all excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flood is denied by me because there is no evidence nor mechanism for it.  Since there is neither, you'd have to prove GOD *before* I'd accept it.  Reminds me of the old joke: Who you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> May your "honest eyes" consider the following without bias: Geological Evidences for a Flood
Click to expand...


An unsourced personal blog is hardly a reliable source.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Compelling evidence for the FLOOD of Noah:
> 
> The traditional view held by geologists is that the Yellowstone petrified tree formations represent many forests which grew one after the other. Each took hundreds of years to grow before it was buried by volcanic ash and slides of volcanic breccia (sharp-edged chunks of volcanic rock cemented to form a solid rock). Then another forest grew on top of it, only to suffer a similar fate, until perhaps as many as fifty to sixty-five forests had been buried and petrified. This explanation has been accepted without question for almost a century. However, recent detailed research has brought to light much evidence that contradicts this traditional view.
> 
> Dr. Harold Coffin has conducted careful studies over a number of years on all aspects of the Specimen Ridge formations. Some of the facts that do not fit the picture of forests' being buried where they grew are as follows:9
> 
> a. Tree roots abruptly terminating or broken.
> 
> b. Almost all trees completely stripped of bark and limbs.
> 
> c. Small trees upright, unbroken (a breccia flow would push them over).
> 
> d. Ring patterns of neighboring trees do not match.
> 
> e. Both upright and prone trees lined up as if by water current.
> 
> f. No valid evidence of soil layers where trees grew.
> 
> g. Absolutely no evidence of animals found where soil layers should be; also, very few cones found.
> 
> h. Many examples of trees overlapping with roots on one located at a level part-way up the trunk of another.
> 
> i. Broad leaves found where tree trunks are only conifers.
> 
> j. Pollen scarce and not of same kind as the tree trunks.
> 
> These and other facts strongly contradict the uniformitarian view. The evidence better fits the view that trees were ripped up and transported from another location by water and dumped in place at the same time that repeated volcanic eruptions were layering the area with ash and breccia. The evidence supports the view that this happened rapidly, not slowly over periods of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years.



Do you mean this guy: Encyclopedia of American Loons: #578: Harold G. Coffin


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest evidence is observable.  The Earth is 3/4 covered with water on the surface.  There is no other planet or exo planet like it.  Also, I LMAO when I found Bill Nye, dim bulb, as he is discovered evidence for the "foundtains of the deep" and didn't even know it.  What a "dumbass atheist."  Dumbass atheist is an oxymoron isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> I viewed it but didn't see anything in it that supported "foundtains of the deep" or anything Biblical.  What did this "dumbass atheist" miss?
Click to expand...


You missed the fountains of the deep.  Catastrophism produces mountains such as earthquakes beneath the ocean as well as on land.  It happens rapidly instead of taking thousands or millions of years.


This second vid is much longer and from the view of secular scientists, but is cool nonetheless.  They do not consider a global flood and an earthquake underneath the oceans producing "fountains of the deep."  It did not take millions of years, but was very rapid.  I think channel flow is the fountains of the deep caused by an act of God and not a natural earth pressure..


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is why the FLOOD must be denied by atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> Utter nonsense. It is rejected by both atheists and many Christians as a myth, since the evidence all contradicts it. All of it. If there were evidence of a global flood, then atheists would accept it, and merely reject magical sky daddies as the explanation. So no, what you just said is stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not utter nonsense. It's rejected by ALL atheists and some people who call themselves "Christian." The evidence is mounting regardless of your opinion. Atheists will not accept the FLOOD unless they become saved (or at least acknowledge the probability of GOD). In which case, they are no longer atheists and don't count according to your logic. I know of several in that regard who now accept the FLOOD and are Christian. Atheists cannot accept the FLOOD because it would vindicate the Bible in the eyes of the world, and make atheists seem stubborn and foolish.
Click to expand...

No goober. Last time: the global flood is rejected as laughable bullshit by everyone except Christian literalists, because it is an absurd, ridiculous idea that is contradicted by all the evidence .


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Odd that the silly “fountains of the deep” doesn't appear in any of the relevant science literature. Could it be that creationists / Flat Earthers are simply pressing Christian fundamentalist dogma?



Not odd because the creation science view or Bible theory has been systematically eliminated by atheist or secular science.  This is why I say atheist scientists are usually wrong because they eliminated God.  To them, it can only happen naturally.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> I rest my case!


Great! Let's get the verdict:

You are wrong, you have not one shred of evidence, and you would fail a 4th grade science test.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no other planet or exo planet like it.
> 
> 
> 
> Made-up bullshit
Click to expand...


Yet, you do not have any evidence.  OTOH, I already gave mine using catastrophism.  Thus, you are a loser once again.  Did you really pass 7th grade ?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Odd that the silly “fountains of the deep” doesn't appear in any of the relevant science literature. Could it be that creationists / Flat Earthers are simply pressing Christian fundamentalist dogma?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not odd because the creation science view or Bible theory has been systematically eliminated by atheist or secular science.  This is why I say atheist scientists are usually wrong because they eliminated God.  To them, it can only happen naturally.
Click to expand...


"Things" happening naturally is what science can investigate. What things have happened supernaturally? Give us a list.

It is the fundamentalist Christians who masquerade their fundamentalist beliefs as "creation science" who have eliminated themselves from the science debate. 

Whether or not you believe the complexity in nature is the result of intelligent design--or not--depends on whether you believe in gross speculation, pseudoscience, or supernaturalism--or not. It is obvious that all living species--and the rest of the universe, for that matter--could have been created by a mendacious, intelligent, cosmic, superhuman or supernatural designer who deceptively gave everything the appearance of natural adaptation, structure, and old age. This is Philip Gosse's argument in _Omphalos_, but even Christian fundamentalists / creationists don't like this argument because, if true, it means their candidate for the "intelligent designer" (their loving and trustworthy God) would be quite obviously malicious! So ID creationists persist in using misleading and specious arguments to try to show that the apparent design in nature reveals real design if only the evidence is correctly interpreted by the methods they propose (i.e., by pseudoscientific methods).


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest evidence is observable.  The Earth is 3/4 covered with water on the surface.  There is no other planet or exo planet like it.  Also, I LMAO when I found Bill Nye, dim bulb, as he is discovered evidence for the "foundtains of the deep" and didn't even know it.  What a "dumbass atheist."  Dumbass atheist is an oxymoron isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> I viewed it but didn't see anything in it that supported "foundtains of the deep" or anything Biblical.  What did this "dumbass atheist" miss?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You missed the fountains of the deep.  Catastrophism produces mountains such as earthquakes beneath the ocean as well as on land.  It happens rapidly instead of taking thousands or millions of years.
> 
> 
> This second vid is much longer and from the view of secular scientists, but is cool nonetheless.  They do not consider a global flood and an earthquake underneath the oceans producing "fountains of the deep."  It did not take millions of years, but was very rapid.  I think channel flow is the fountains of the deep caused by an act of God and not a natural earth pressure..
Click to expand...



Ah. You're a Harun Yahya fan?


----------



## beautress

alang1216 said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're so gullible as to believe a silly youtube video, utterly unsupported, that's your choice. Just don't presume to foist your gullibility on others
> 
> 
> 
> Tou should do your homework science denier. Do you think the intent of that video, or the article was to prove the flood?
> Most idiots/tards think the flood was caused solely by 40 days of rain, but the truth is, GOD says he "opened the fountains of the deep."
> 
> The existence of this great body of water is FACT. Deny all you want, denier.
> 
> Rare Diamond Confirms That Earth's Mantle Holds an Ocean's Worth of Water
> 
> There’s as much water in Earth’s mantle as in all the oceans
> 
> Found! Hidden Ocean Locked Up Deep in Earth's Mantle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no 'ocean' underground.  There is plenty of h2o but it is not collected into a single water body.  Physics says it ain't so.  To use the sponge analogy, to get the water out you'd have to squeeze the earth and there is no force in nature that could do that without destroying the planet.
Click to expand...

Ya think so?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Yet, you do not have any evidence.


Of what? Be specific, charlatan. I have no evidence...that there was no global flood? We, of course, have mountains of such evidence,  empirical, circumstantial, and theoretical. You have already admitted many times that your only evidence is the magical voodoo incantantions found in the Bible. So why this stupid dog and pony show? Just own your faith and stop embarrassing yourself.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> "Things" happening naturally is what science can investigate.



How did science investigate the big bang when there was no space and time?



Hollie said:


> What things have happened supernaturally? Give us a list.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> How did science investigate the big bang when there was no space and time?


What a stupid question.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Things" happening naturally is what science can investigate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did science investigate the big bang when there was no space and time?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What things have happened supernaturally? Give us a list.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Against an entire body of science, the best the ID/creationists at AIG can offer are cartoons?


----------



## Old Rocks

Major floods leave big evidence. We know this in the Pacific Northwest, because we have had several. There is no evidence for a worldwide flood, period. Not only that, there is the problem of where the water would have gone after the flood. This has to be one of the dumbest hypothesis that I have seen posted here.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did science investigate the big bang when there was no space and time?
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid question.
Click to expand...


The atheist science answer is more stupid and you lost due to another emotional ad hominem attack .


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Against an entire body of science, the best the ID/creationists at AIG can offer are cartoons?



What body of science?  I doubt you can answer my question.  My infograph explains succinctly and is by AIG.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> The atheist science answer is more stupid


Oh yeah? And what is it? You don't even know. So just shut the fuk up.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Against an entire body of science, the best the ID/creationists at AIG can offer are cartoons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What body of science?  I doubt you can answer my question.  My infograph explains succinctly and is by AIG.
Click to expand...


Your madrassah was, I'm sure, not real rigorous on science lessons but outside of the AIG madrassah, there's an entire world of learning.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oh yeah? And what is it? You don't even know. So just shut the fuk up.



There, there.  I know.  I said it before and I'll say it again.  Secular science has become atheist science because they systematically eliminated God, the supernatural (Genesis) and the Bible theory from science.  Secular scientists believed in the aforementioned before the 1850s.  This eliminates their counterparts who question the evolution theory and the Earth and universe being billions of years old.  If atheist scientists actually practiced real science, then they would not be afraid of criticism.  However, they have no observable, testable and falsifiable science to back up their theories.  Thus, it bullsh*t that you and many other so called educated people who believe in science today with no God nor creator.  It's fake science that you believe in just because it was taught to you in schools.  Science has always been about disagreements and the biggest body of disagreers were eliminated.  Thus, these atheist scientists believe in abiogenesis, big bang, aliens, humans from apes/chimps, birds from dinosaurs and more BS when there is no real science behind it.  The Bible theory is more credible to believe that what the evos (atheist scientists) propose happened and it has nothing to do with "faith."  It's backed by real science.  You could not answer how the universe could start when there was no space and time.

One argument for this is the argument from contingency:

If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
The universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.
Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.
Thus, you need to go back to the drawing board or just admit that you are a whiner with no means of support.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Against an entire body of science, the best the ID/creationists at AIG can offer are cartoons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What body of science?  I doubt you can answer my question.  My infograph explains succinctly and is by AIG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your madrassah was, I'm sure, not real rigorous on science lessons but outside of the AIG madrassah, there's an entire world of learning.
Click to expand...


As usual, all you can do is beotch.  You claimed "an entire body of science" exists to back up your claims, but you cannot answer my simple question while I answered yours.  WHAT BODY OF SCIENCE???!!!???!!!  Not only can you not discern between ID and creationism, you do not even understand nor able to explain what your "an entire body of science" is.  No need to waste any more time with you .


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> they have no observable, testable and falsifiable science to back up their theories.


Science is the study of the natural world NOT the supernatural, that is the provenance of theology.  Apples and oranges.  To say scientists have no science to back up their theories is absurd but accurately describes ID or creationism or whatever.


----------



## Likkmee

Here's one for ya. Coincidence for the haters again


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Science is the study of the natural world NOT the supernatural



That's bullpuckey.  We're not talking about ghosts and goblins here .  Today's secular science and you believe in stupid, dumbass sh*t that isn't even science.  Go find some real evidence.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is the study of the natural world NOT the supernatural
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's bullpuckey.  We're not talking about ghosts and goblins here .  Today's secular science and you believe in stupid, dumbass sh*t that isn't even science.  Go find some real evidence.
Click to expand...

Actually it is not bullpuckey:
*Dictionary result for science*
/ˈsīəns/
_noun_
noun: *science*

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the *physical and natural world* through observation and experiment.

So you don't believe in ghosts or goblins?  How about angels and demons?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is the study of the natural world NOT the supernatural
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's bullpuckey.  We're not talking about ghosts and goblins here .  Today's secular science and you believe in stupid, dumbass sh*t that isn't even science.  Go find some real evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it is not bullpuckey:
> *Dictionary result for science*
> /ˈsīəns/
> _noun_
> noun: *science*
> 
> the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the *physical and natural world* through observation and experiment.
> 
> So you don't believe in ghosts or goblins?  How about angels and demons?
Click to expand...


Haha.  A dictionary is not evidence.  You do not have observational nor experimental evidence in regards to evolutionary origins and history.  Even the ToE is questionable.  OTOH, our universe and natural world is here and had to have a cause.  Space and time began to exist so had to have a cause.

You ask about angels and demons which are intelligent life outside of Earth that creationists and their scientists believe in.  What about aliens?  Do you believe they exist with no evidence whatsoever?  Many atheist scientists believe in them and claim they will find the evidence in ten to fifteen years.  NASA will even accept one with little or no intelligence whatsoever like a microble but can't find one.  OTOH, we have evidence for angels and demons in Scripture.  God created a band of angels to live with him in heaven (another dimension?) where they remain to this day.  At times throughout history, the Bible tells use that angels were used as divine messengers and heralds of God's will.  There was also a band of angels who rebelled against God led by Lucifer the head angel who thought his powers equaled God's.  They were banished from heaven and became the demons.  The non-believers are predestined to meet their banished counterparts in the next life.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> You do not have observational nor experimental evidence in regards to evolutionary origins and history.


So embarrassingly stupid...and dishonest...truly a laughingstock...


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is the study of the natural world NOT the supernatural
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's bullpuckey.  We're not talking about ghosts and goblins here .  Today's secular science and you believe in stupid, dumbass sh*t that isn't even science.  Go find some real evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it is not bullpuckey:
> *Dictionary result for science*
> /ˈsīəns/
> _noun_
> noun: *science*
> 
> the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the *physical and natural world* through observation and experiment.
> 
> So you don't believe in ghosts or goblins?  How about angels and demons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  A dictionary is not evidence.  You do not have observational nor experimental evidence in regards to evolutionary origins and history.  Even the ToE is questionable.  OTOH, our universe and natural world is here and had to have a cause.  Space and time began to exist so had to have a cause.
> 
> You ask about angels and demons which are intelligent life outside of Earth that creationists and their scientists believe in.  What about aliens?  Do you believe they exist with no evidence whatsoever?  Many atheist scientists believe in them and claim they will find the evidence in ten to fifteen years.  NASA will even accept one with little or no intelligence whatsoever like a microble but can't find one.  OTOH, we have evidence for angels and demons in Scripture.  God created a band of angels to live with him in heaven (another dimension?) where they remain to this day.  At times throughout history, the Bible tells use that angels were used as divine messengers and heralds of God's will.  There was also a band of angels who rebelled against God led by Lucifer the head angel who thought his powers equaled God's.  They were banished from heaven and became the demons.  The non-believers are predestined to meet their banished counterparts in the next life.
Click to expand...


Actually, there is a vast amount of observational and experimental evidence for biological evolution. 

It won’t be available to you at your madrassah but the facts are not in dispute among the relevant science community or even most thinking humans. 

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is the study of the natural world NOT the supernatural
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's bullpuckey.  We're not talking about ghosts and goblins here .  Today's secular science and you believe in stupid, dumbass sh*t that isn't even science.  Go find some real evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it is not bullpuckey:
> *Dictionary result for science*
> /ˈsīəns/
> _noun_
> noun: *science*
> 
> the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the *physical and natural world* through observation and experiment.
> 
> So you don't believe in ghosts or goblins?  How about angels and demons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  A dictionary is not evidence.  You do not have observational nor experimental evidence in regards to evolutionary origins and history.  Even the ToE is questionable.  OTOH, our universe and natural world is here and had to have a cause.  Space and time began to exist so had to have a cause.
> 
> You ask about angels and demons which are intelligent life outside of Earth that creationists and their scientists believe in.  What about aliens?  Do you believe they exist with no evidence whatsoever?  Many atheist scientists believe in them and claim they will find the evidence in ten to fifteen years.  NASA will even accept one with little or no intelligence whatsoever like a microble but can't find one.  OTOH, we have evidence for angels and demons in Scripture.  God created a band of angels to live with him in heaven (another dimension?) where they remain to this day.  At times throughout history, the Bible tells use that angels were used as divine messengers and heralds of God's will.  There was also a band of angels who rebelled against God led by Lucifer the head angel who thought his powers equaled God's.  They were banished from heaven and became the demons.  The non-believers are predestined to meet their banished counterparts in the next life.
Click to expand...

I'm always amazed that creationists demand evidence to support evolution but are fine to accept the total lack of evidence of creationism.  The Bible has the story of creation but certainly no mechanisms.  How did God 'breathed life' into a pile of dust?  What tools or methods did he use? 

Face it, everything you know about creationism, angels, demons, etc. is in the Bible, there is no evidence outside of it.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is the study of the natural world NOT the supernatural
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's bullpuckey.  We're not talking about ghosts and goblins here .  Today's secular science and you believe in stupid, dumbass sh*t that isn't even science.  Go find some real evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it is not bullpuckey:
> *Dictionary result for science*
> /ˈsīəns/
> _noun_
> noun: *science*
> 
> the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the *physical and natural world* through observation and experiment.
> 
> So you don't believe in ghosts or goblins?  How about angels and demons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  A dictionary is not evidence.  You do not have observational nor experimental evidence in regards to evolutionary origins and history.  Even the ToE is questionable.  OTOH, our universe and natural world is here and had to have a cause.  Space and time began to exist so had to have a cause.
> 
> You ask about angels and demons which are intelligent life outside of Earth that creationists and their scientists believe in.  What about aliens?  Do you believe they exist with no evidence whatsoever?  Many atheist scientists believe in them and claim they will find the evidence in ten to fifteen years.  NASA will even accept one with little or no intelligence whatsoever like a microble but can't find one.  OTOH, we have evidence for angels and demons in Scripture.  God created a band of angels to live with him in heaven (another dimension?) where they remain to this day.  At times throughout history, the Bible tells use that angels were used as divine messengers and heralds of God's will.  There was also a band of angels who rebelled against God led by Lucifer the head angel who thought his powers equaled God's.  They were banished from heaven and became the demons.  The non-believers are predestined to meet their banished counterparts in the next life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm always amazed that creationists demand evidence to support evolution but are fine to accept the total lack of evidence of creationism.  The Bible has the story of creation but certainly no mechanisms.  How did God 'breathed life' into a pile of dust?  What tools or methods did he use?
> 
> Face it, everything you know about creationism, angels, demons, etc. is in the Bible, there is no evidence outside of it.
Click to expand...


Ho hum.  No evidence for aliens when I presented evidence for angels and demons in the Bible.  I also have personal testimony.  Raphael is my guardian angel and his color is green.  He's saved me from bad situations numerous times and continues to do so.  How do you know that you're not influenced by demons?  Have you done something bad in your life?  Or are tempted to do so?  Satan temps while God warns.

I'm asking what you have to explain evolution.  Can you explain it in your own words?  There's plenty of evidence for creation such as how can the universe and Earth and everything in it be here when there was no space and time to begin with?  God's breath is life; That's all he needs.  Humans cannot create life aside from that which was given to them by God.  Evo cannot explain how sexual reproduction evolved.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is the study of the natural world NOT the supernatural
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's bullpuckey.  We're not talking about ghosts and goblins here .  Today's secular science and you believe in stupid, dumbass sh*t that isn't even science.  Go find some real evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it is not bullpuckey:
> *Dictionary result for science*
> /ˈsīəns/
> _noun_
> noun: *science*
> 
> the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the *physical and natural world* through observation and experiment.
> 
> So you don't believe in ghosts or goblins?  How about angels and demons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  A dictionary is not evidence.  You do not have observational nor experimental evidence in regards to evolutionary origins and history.  Even the ToE is questionable.  OTOH, our universe and natural world is here and had to have a cause.  Space and time began to exist so had to have a cause.
> 
> You ask about angels and demons which are intelligent life outside of Earth that creationists and their scientists believe in.  What about aliens?  Do you believe they exist with no evidence whatsoever?  Many atheist scientists believe in them and claim they will find the evidence in ten to fifteen years.  NASA will even accept one with little or no intelligence whatsoever like a microble but can't find one.  OTOH, we have evidence for angels and demons in Scripture.  God created a band of angels to live with him in heaven (another dimension?) where they remain to this day.  At times throughout history, the Bible tells use that angels were used as divine messengers and heralds of God's will.  There was also a band of angels who rebelled against God led by Lucifer the head angel who thought his powers equaled God's.  They were banished from heaven and became the demons.  The non-believers are predestined to meet their banished counterparts in the next life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm always amazed that creationists demand evidence to support evolution but are fine to accept the total lack of evidence of creationism.  The Bible has the story of creation but certainly no mechanisms.  How did God 'breathed life' into a pile of dust?  What tools or methods did he use?
> 
> Face it, everything you know about creationism, angels, demons, etc. is in the Bible, there is no evidence outside of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ho hum.  No evidence for aliens when I presented evidence for angels and demons in the Bible.  I also have personal testimony.  Raphael is my guardian angel and his color is green.  He's saved me from bad situations numerous times and continues to do so.  How do you know that you're not influenced by demons?  Have you done something bad in your life?  Or are tempted to do so?  Satan temps while God warns.
> 
> I'm asking what you have to explain evolution.  Can you explain it in your own words?  There's plenty of evidence for creation such as how can the universe and Earth and everything in it be here when there was no space and time to begin with?  God's breath is life; That's all he needs.  Humans cannot create life aside from that which was given to them by God.  Evo cannot explain how sexual reproduction evolved.
Click to expand...


I'm sure you and "Raphael" make a lovely couple.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Ho hum.  No evidence for aliens when I presented evidence for angels and demons in the Bible.  I also have personal testimony.  Raphael is my guardian angel and his color is green.  He's saved me from bad situations numerous times and continues to do so.  How do you know that you're not influenced by demons?  Have you done something bad in your life?  Or are tempted to do so?  Satan temps while God warns.


How do you know Raphael is an angel and not a demon?  He's helped you but that is just what a demon might do to gain your trust.  Maybe Islam is the one true faith and he's afraid you become a Muslim and go to heaven?



james bond said:


> I'm asking what you have to explain evolution.  Can you explain it in your own words?


Yes: decent from a common ancestor due to natural selection.



james bond said:


> There's plenty of evidence for creation such as how can the universe and Earth and everything in it be here when there was no space and time to begin with?  God's breath is life; That's all he needs.


A gap in our knowledge is NOT evidence for creationism.
Breath may be all God needs but how does it work?



james bond said:


> Humans cannot create life aside from that which was given to them by God.


Artificial life breakthrough after scientists create new living organism using synthetic DNA



james bond said:


> Evo cannot explain how sexual reproduction evolved.


We can't prove what happened in the distant past but there are many theories.


----------



## cnm

james bond said:


> Ho hum. No evidence for aliens when I presented evidence for angels and demons in the Bible.


My ribs, my ribs! Please warn us before doing that so I may  don my corset in time.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ho hum.  No evidence for aliens when I presented evidence for angels and demons in the Bible.  I also have personal testimony.  Raphael is my guardian angel and his color is green.  He's saved me from bad situations numerous times and continues to do so.  How do you know that you're not influenced by demons?  Have you done something bad in your life?  Or are tempted to do so?  Satan temps while God warns.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know Raphael is an angel and not a demon?  He's helped you but that is just what a demon might do to gain your trust.  Maybe Islam is the one true faith and he's afraid you become a Muslim and go to heaven?
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm asking what you have to explain evolution.  Can you explain it in your own words?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes: decent from a common ancestor due to natural selection.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's plenty of evidence for creation such as how can the universe and Earth and everything in it be here when there was no space and time to begin with?  God's breath is life; That's all he needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A gap in our knowledge is NOT evidence for creationism.
> Breath may be all God needs but how does it work?
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans cannot create life aside from that which was given to them by God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Artificial life breakthrough after scientists create new living organism using synthetic DNA
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evo cannot explain how sexual reproduction evolved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can't prove what happened in the distant past but there are many theories.
Click to expand...


It's my testimony and not yours.  I should know.  And others' testimonials are in the Bible, too.


----------



## james bond

cnm said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ho hum. No evidence for aliens when I presented evidence for angels and demons in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> My ribs, my ribs! Please warn us before doing that so I may  don my corset in time.
Click to expand...


Maybe your non-existent aliens took them to fairy tale land.


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Science proves the fetus as having its DNA different from the mothers

Which proves its a human life going thru the stages of development 

Same as infant and toddler




Otium said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump will
> Transform the whole European way of living life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By helping Putin ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've got no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is destroying liberalism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By exposing its hypocrisies.
Click to expand...


Yep. Human nature gets upset with hypocrisy ...and their anger then stops it.  The most wise will see the hypocrisy first and these would be white males

The wise white males has judged Muellers probe as blackmail to scare trump to over look the more serious crimes by democrats 

Barr is soon to be confirmed and the investigations of the deep state will begin

And soon both investigations will be looked at side by side

Barr will declare the mueller probe as a blackmail crime to cover up more serious crimes

Trump has the white men with their highest logic ability who already had judged Muellers probe as blackmail

Barr or anyone cannot afford to go against the REAL POWER. The white males

The white males has never lost a war


----------



## Vandalshandle

I enjoy going to renaissance  fairs. You know, where you can shoot a bow and arrow and everyone dresses the part of medieval kings and priests. reading threads like this can be fun, too. It is like taking a journey back in time to when people worshiped the sun, and made up stories about floods and talking snakes.  I guess that some people miss the 50's, and others miss pre-new world discovery days, and some miss days when people had no education whatsoever....


----------



## james bond

Here's the other weird thing about non-believers.  They think the Bible is fairy tales, but it is considered a non-fiction book and a historical book.  It is the best selling book year-after-year.  If it doesn't take God to create life, then humans should be able to create life from non-life.  That has never been done.  So people who believe in that do not understand science nor understand how life works.  One poster though amino acids were life.  Moreover, once you are dead, then you cannot come back to life.  Life from non-life has always been told in science fiction or horror like Frankenstein.  It's the non-believers who believe in fairy tales, sci-fi, horror and the like.  Once you are dead, then the spiritual side becomes important and the non-believers will lose their perfect spiritual selves because they will be in a state called the "spiritually dead."

ETA:  Here's the part that I do not understand about being spiritually dead.  The Bible states that it signifies a continuous state of death that began with spiritual death.  How can death be continuous?  Do you relive death over and over?


----------



## cnm

james bond said:


> If it doesn't take God to create life, then humans should be able to create life from non-life.


Jesus.


----------



## cnm

If it doesn't take god to create black holes then humans should be able to create black holes.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

cnm said:


> If it doesn't take god to create black holes then humans should be able to create black holes.


Exactly...he's an embarrassing little charlatan.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Here's the other weird thing about non-believers.  They think the Bible is fairy tales, but it is considered a non-fiction book and a historical book.  It is the best selling book year-after-year.  If it doesn't take God to create life, then humans should be able to create life from non-life.  That has never been done.  So people who believe in that do not understand science nor understand how life works.  One poster though amino acids were life.  Moreover, once you are dead, then you cannot come back to life.  Life from non-life has always been told in science fiction or horror like Frankenstein.  It's the non-believers who believe in fairy tales, sci-fi, horror and the like.  Once you are dead, then the spiritual side becomes important and the non-believers will lose their perfect spiritual selves because they will be in a state called the "spiritually dead."
> 
> ETA:  Here's the part that I do not understand about being spiritually dead.  The Bible states that it signifies a continuous state of death that began with spiritual death.  How can death be continuous?  Do you relive death over and over?



Non-believers as well as believers in competing religions think there is much in the Bible’s that qualifies as fairy tales. Humanity wiping floods, People living 600 years, ritual slaughter of animals as offerings to the gods, men rising from the dead, incestuous / familial relations to re-populate the planet.... good gawd, man,


----------



## anynameyouwish

Death Angel said:


> "The fountains of the deep."
> 
> The Great Flood occurred, not only because of the rain, ite also says the earth "opened up" and released the "fountains of the deep."
> 
> Another huge OCEAN deep within gave up its water for a time.
> 
> Did Geologists Discover ‘Fountains of the Deep’ From Genesis Flood?


You know so much about SOME THINGS while knowing nothing at all about so much more.....

every mythology on record has a story about the flood....

a flood may have happened but it doesn't prove god exists.

It just proves there was a flood.


----------



## bripat9643

Death Angel said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're so gullible as to believe a silly youtube video, utterly unsupported, that's your choice. Just don't presume to foist your gullibility on others
> 
> 
> 
> Tou should do your homework science denier. Do you think the intent of that video, or the article was to prove the flood?
> Most idiots/tards think the flood was caused solely by 40 days of rain, but the truth is, GOD says he "opened the fountains of the deep."
> 
> The existence of this great body of water is FACT. Deny all you want, denier.
> 
> Rare Diamond Confirms That Earth's Mantle Holds an Ocean's Worth of Water
> 
> There’s as much water in Earth’s mantle as in all the oceans
> 
> Found! Hidden Ocean Locked Up Deep in Earth's Mantle
Click to expand...

God doesn't say that.   A book written by iron age nomads says that.  The water exists, but where is the evidence that it spewed out of the Earth 5000 years ago?


----------



## bripat9643

fncceo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real problem is the ark that held thousands of animal pairs being only 50 feet long and 35 feet wide. And please do not forget the bible was created and written by humans to coerce slaves to not rebel or kill their masters or a multitude of other "crimes".
> 
> 
> 
> The ark wasn't even big enough to hold every species of insect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why these guys didn't make the cut...  thank heaven!
Click to expand...

They were herbivores - nothing to be afraid of.


----------



## bripat9643

edthecynic said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real problem is the ark that held thousands of animal pairs being only 50 feet long and 35 feet wide. And please do not forget the bible was created and written by humans to coerce slaves to not rebel or kill their masters or a multitude of other "crimes".
> 
> 
> 
> Was about 500 feet long moron. The rest is more tard nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it was!
> 
> Noah's Ark: Sea Trials
> Whether a wooden ship the size of Noah's Ark could be made seaworthy is in grave doubt. At 137 meters (450 feet), Noah's Ark would be the largest wooden vessel ever confirmed to have been built. In recorded history, some dozen or so wooden ships have been constructed over 90 meters; few have been successful. Even so, these wooden ships had a great advantage over Noah's Ark: their curved hull shapes. Stress loads are distributed much more efficiently over three dimensionally curved surfaces than they are over flat surfaces. But even with this advantage, real-world large wooden ships have had severe problems. The sailing ships the 100 meter _Wyoming_ (sunk in 1924) and 99 meter _Santiago_ (sunk in 1918) were so large that they flexed in the water, opening up seams in the hull and leaking. The 102 meter British warships _HMS Orlando_ and _HMS Mersey_ had such bad structural problems that they were scrapped in 1871 and 1875 after only a few years in service. Most of the largest wooden ships were, like Noah's Ark, unpowered barges. Yet even those built in modern times, such as the 103 meter _Pretoria_ in 1901, required substantial amounts of steel reinforcement; and even then needed steam-powered pumps to fight the constant flex-induced leaking.
> 
> Even in the world of legend, only two other ships are said to have approached the size claimed for Noah's Ark. One was the Greek trireme _Tessarakonteres_ at 127 meters, the length and existence of which is known only by the accounts of Plutarch and Athenaeus. Plutarch said of her:
> 
> _But this ship was merely for show; and since she differed little from a stationary edifice on land, being meant for exhibition and not for use, she was moved only with difficulty and danger._
> 
> The other example is the largest of the Chinese treasure ships built by the admiral Zheng He in the 15th century, matching Noah's 137 meters, but only in the highest estimates. Many believe the biggest ships Zheng took with him on his seven voyages were no bigger than half that size, and moreover, that they remained behind in rivers and were not suitably seaworthy for ocean travels.
> 
> The long and the short of it — no pun intended — is that there's no precedent for a wooden ship the size of Noah's Ark being seaworthy, and plenty of naval engineering experience telling us that it wouldn't be expected to work. Even if pumps had been installed and all hands worked round the clock pumping, the Ark certainly would have leaked catastrophically, filled with water, and capsized.
Click to expand...

The longest wooden ship ever recorded is the schooner Wyoming.  It was 450 feet long.  However, it had significant amounts of iron in it, so it's not a pure wooden ship. 

100 meters seems to be about the max for a pure wooden ship.


----------



## bripat9643

Death Angel said:


> The scoffers who reject that God released "the fountains of the deep" accept on FAITH that the universe created itself from nothing with a big bang


We don't make any claims about how the universe started.  Only the creationists do that.


----------



## bripat9643

The Irish Ram said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Science and God. No need to exclude one to prove the other.  They are mutual. Complex DNA, in single cell life, just shoots the shit out of the simple to complex theory.  And, as far as diversifying, every time an evolutionary  found a misshapen tooth they created a misshapen human to go with it.
> Your Father is God Almighty, not Cheetah:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is wrong with you goofy?
> There is NO Evidence, much less proof, of god/gods.The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation....His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an INTELLIGENCE of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
> No reason to bring it/him/they in.
> YOU are "Exclusive of science".
> 
> Then please pick your god/dog because there are so many different gods/creation Myths.
> At least 75% of believers are necessarily wrong even if one stepped in it.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's ask Einstein:
> "The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation....His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an INTELLIGENCE of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."
> There ya go... The compatibility of science and God.
> 
> And here is the evidence you seek in proving God:
> He compiled a book that is 1/4 future predictions spanning thousands of years.  And they have all been spot on.  Over 10,000 of them. That requires being able to traverse dimensions (that science *just* found, and that Christ was described in the Bible as doing 2 thousand years before Hawking).
> 
> Now, keeping in mind that if you are wrong we get to stone you to death, tell me what horse will win the  next Breeders Cup . Better yet, increase your odds. Ask your dog...
Click to expand...

That's horse manure.  None of the so-called "predictions" are accurate.  Believers contort them so much that they are unrecognizable.


----------



## The Irish Ram

The Dead Sea Scrolls prove you wrong.  The age of the scrolls prove that no one contorted anything later.  God's predictions are spot on.  Here's just one example addressing your allegations specifically:

Some critics charge that the word "pierced" in Psalm 22:16 is an incorrect translation that Christians later imposed to make it look like the verse foreshadows the crucifixion. The critics claim that the proper rendering of the Hebrew should be, “Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet.” But this criticism is inaccurate and actually based on manuscript copies written much later.

The two Hebrew words for “pierced” and “lion” are similar but in the earliest Hebrew manuscripts by over a thousand years (the Dead Sea scrolls, 150 BC), the term is unmistakably “pierced”. So the idea that Christians added it later* is impossible.* There were no Christians in existence in 150 BC. Jesus hadn't even been born.

Not only were there no Christians in existence in 150 BC, there was no such thing as crucifixion either.  No hand and feet piercing, No hanging people on trees.  It was unheard of in 150 BC. 

You can't even tell me what is going to happen tomorrow....


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The Irish Ram said:


> The Dead Sea Scrolls prove you wrong.


What a ridiculous notion. That is like saying that the book of James proves the book of genesis is factual. This is really , truly embarrassingly bad logic.


----------



## bripat9643

The Irish Ram said:


> The Dead Sea Scrolls prove you wrong.  The age of the scrolls prove that no one contorted anything later.  God's predictions are spot on.  Here's just one example addressing your allegations specifically:
> 
> Some critics charge that the word "pierced" in Psalm 22:16 is an incorrect translation that Christians later imposed to make it look like the verse foreshadows the crucifixion. The critics claim that the proper rendering of the Hebrew should be, “Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet.” But this criticism is inaccurate and actually based on manuscript copies written much later.
> 
> The two Hebrew words for “pierced” and “lion” are similar but in the earliest Hebrew manuscripts by over a thousand years (the Dead Sea scrolls, 150 BC), the term is unmistakably “pierced”. So the idea that Christians added it later* is impossible.* There were no Christians in existence in 150 BC. Jesus hadn't even been born.
> 
> Not only were there no Christians in existence in 150 BC, there was no such thing as crucifixion either.  No hand and feet piercing, No hanging people on trees.  It was unheard of in 150 BC.
> 
> You can't even tell me what is going to happen tomorrow....


Please quote the passage that makes the prediction.


----------



## alang1216

The Irish Ram said:


> Not only were there no Christians in existence in 150 BC, there was no such thing as crucifixion either.  No hand and feet piercing, No hanging people on trees.  It was unheard of in 150 BC.


FYI:
The Greeks were generally opposed to performing crucifixions.[67] However, in his _Histories_, ix.120–122, the Greek writer Herodotus describes the execution of a Persian general at the hands of Athenians in about 479 BC: "*They nailed him to a plank and hung him up* ... this Artayctes who suffered death by crucifixion."[68] The _Commentary on Herodotus_ by How and Wells remarks: "They crucified him with hands and feet stretched out and nailed to cross-pieces; cf. vii.33. This barbarity, unusual on the part of Greeks, may be explained by the enormity of the outrage or by Athenian deference to local feeling."[69]

The Jewish king Alexander Jannaeus, king of Judea from 103 BC to 76 BC, crucified 800 rebels, said to be Pharisees, in the middle of Jerusalem.[72][73]

Alexander the Great is reputed to have crucified 2,000 survivors from his siege of the Phoenician city of Tyre,[74]​


----------



## evenflow1969

Hollie said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science sure does upset the God Haters!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Science is simply not concerned with supernaturalism. Nothing in nature depicts supernaturalism. Every discovery in science has had a natural explanation.
> 
> Can you identify a single instance of supernaturalism - something in the natural world that has supernatural underpinnings. Belief in magic and superstition is irrational. There's no reason to accept magic and supernaturalism in place of well defined knowledge of the natural world.
Click to expand...

Please rationalize special relitivity and and quantum entanglement then. Instantanious action from billions of light years away sure seems supernatural. Gving it a name and recognizing it's existance is a far cry from describing the mechanics of it.


----------



## Hollie

evenflow1969 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science sure does upset the God Haters!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Science is simply not concerned with supernaturalism. Nothing in nature depicts supernaturalism. Every discovery in science has had a natural explanation.
> 
> Can you identify a single instance of supernaturalism - something in the natural world that has supernatural underpinnings. Belief in magic and superstition is irrational. There's no reason to accept magic and supernaturalism in place of well defined knowledge of the natural world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please rationalize special relitivity and and quantum entanglement then. Instantanious action from billions of light years away sure seems supernatural. Gving it a name and recognizing it's existance is a far cry from describing the mechanics of it.
Click to expand...


Well, if it _seems_ supernatural, it must be.

Your well researched and thoughtful argument seems to have convinced me.


----------



## evenflow1969

Hollie said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science sure does upset the God Haters!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Science is simply not concerned with supernaturalism. Nothing in nature depicts supernaturalism. Every discovery in science has had a natural explanation.
> 
> Can you identify a single instance of supernaturalism - something in the natural world that has supernatural underpinnings. Belief in magic and superstition is irrational. There's no reason to accept magic and supernaturalism in place of well defined knowledge of the natural world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please rationalize special relitivity and and quantum entanglement then. Instantanious action from billions of light years away sure seems supernatural. Gving it a name and recognizing it's existance is a far cry from describing the mechanics of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if it _seems_ supernatural, it must be.
> 
> Your well researched and thoughtful argument seems to have convinced me.
Click to expand...

I am not saying that I agree with the bible and it's time line, but the informed realizes that not all is yet explained. I have yet to see an attempt at your rationalization.


----------



## evenflow1969

Hollie said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science sure does upset the God Haters!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Science is simply not concerned with supernaturalism. Nothing in nature depicts supernaturalism. Every discovery in science has had a natural explanation.
> 
> Can you identify a single instance of supernaturalism - something in the natural world that has supernatural underpinnings. Belief in magic and superstition is irrational. There's no reason to accept magic and supernaturalism in place of well defined knowledge of the natural world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please rationalize special relitivity and and quantum entanglement then. Instantanious action from billions of light years away sure seems supernatural. Gving it a name and recognizing it's existance is a far cry from describing the mechanics of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if it _seems_ supernatural, it must be.
> 
> Your well researched and thoughtful argument seems to have convinced me.
Click to expand...

For instance have you considered the odds on your living in a biological relm verses a simulated one?
Is our world a simulation? Why some scientists say it's more likely than not
If one were to exist in  a simulated realm would not the programers and the code laws be an approximation of god in the bible.? Would it not be possible that rules and consditions set fourth in the bible could be the coded rules of the simulation. It is not quite as far fetched as it might seem.
PS After seeing the new and improved double slit experiments I have come to a conclusion that all possibilities exist and I will not figure out which possible out come I am a part of, thinking I already have the answers.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're so gullible as to believe a silly youtube video, utterly unsupported, that's your choice. Just don't presume to foist your gullibility on others
> 
> 
> 
> Tou should do your homework science denier. Do you think the intent of that video, or the article was to prove the flood?
> Most idiots/tards think the flood was caused solely by 40 days of rain, but the truth is, GOD says he "opened the fountains of the deep."
> 
> The existence of this great body of water is FACT. Deny all you want, denier.
> 
> Rare Diamond Confirms That Earth's Mantle Holds an Ocean's Worth of Water
> 
> There’s as much water in Earth’s mantle as in all the oceans
> 
> Found! Hidden Ocean Locked Up Deep in Earth's Mantle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God doesn't say that.   A book written by iron age nomads says that.  The water exists, but where is the evidence that it spewed out of the Earth 5000 years ago?
Click to expand...


It's God as only eyewitness evidence.  There is evidence of marine fossils on top of Mt. Everest and the Himalayas were formed then.  How else does a planet get covered by 3/4 water on the surface?  There is no other planet like it in the universe.  Just like aliens, you won't find a planet like it.  You'll die like Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking and the other schmoes who believed in aliens and watery surfaced planets.


----------



## evenflow1969

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're so gullible as to believe a silly youtube video, utterly unsupported, that's your choice. Just don't presume to foist your gullibility on others
> 
> 
> 
> Tou should do your homework science denier. Do you think the intent of that video, or the article was to prove the flood?
> Most idiots/tards think the flood was caused solely by 40 days of rain, but the truth is, GOD says he "opened the fountains of the deep."
> 
> The existence of this great body of water is FACT. Deny all you want, denier.
> 
> Rare Diamond Confirms That Earth's Mantle Holds an Ocean's Worth of Water
> 
> There’s as much water in Earth’s mantle as in all the oceans
> 
> Found! Hidden Ocean Locked Up Deep in Earth's Mantle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God doesn't say that.   A book written by iron age nomads says that.  The water exists, but where is the evidence that it spewed out of the Earth 5000 years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's God as only eyewitness evidence.  There is evidence of marine fossils on top of Mt. Everest and the Himalayas were formed then.  How else does a planet get covered by 3/4 water on the surface?  There is no other planet like it in the universe.  Just like aliens, you won't find a planet like it.  You'll die like Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking and the other schmoes who believed in aliens and watery surfaced planets.
Click to expand...

I think I might have broke Hollie!


----------



## Hollie

evenflow1969 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science sure does upset the God Haters!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Science is simply not concerned with supernaturalism. Nothing in nature depicts supernaturalism. Every discovery in science has had a natural explanation.
> 
> Can you identify a single instance of supernaturalism - something in the natural world that has supernatural underpinnings. Belief in magic and superstition is irrational. There's no reason to accept magic and supernaturalism in place of well defined knowledge of the natural world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please rationalize special relitivity and and quantum entanglement then. Instantanious action from billions of light years away sure seems supernatural. Gving it a name and recognizing it's existance is a far cry from describing the mechanics of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if it _seems_ supernatural, it must be.
> 
> Your well researched and thoughtful argument seems to have convinced me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For instance have you considered the odds on your living in a biological relm verses a simulated one?
> Is our world a simulation? Why some scientists say it's more likely than not
> If one were to exist in  a simulated realm would not the programers and the code laws be an approximation of god in the bible.? Would it not be possible that rules and consditions set fourth in the bible could be the coded rules of the simulation. It is not quite as far fetched as it might seem.
> PS After seeing the new and improved double slit experiments I have come to a conclusion that all possibilities exist and I will not figure out which possible out come I am a part of, thinking I already have the answers.
Click to expand...


I note the article primarily focuses on Elon Musk and Silicon Valley tech folks who subscribe to your simulation world. 

Not exactly the folks who are offering anything to support such claims.


----------



## Hollie

evenflow1969 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're so gullible as to believe a silly youtube video, utterly unsupported, that's your choice. Just don't presume to foist your gullibility on others
> 
> 
> 
> Tou should do your homework science denier. Do you think the intent of that video, or the article was to prove the flood?
> Most idiots/tards think the flood was caused solely by 40 days of rain, but the truth is, GOD says he "opened the fountains of the deep."
> 
> The existence of this great body of water is FACT. Deny all you want, denier.
> 
> Rare Diamond Confirms That Earth's Mantle Holds an Ocean's Worth of Water
> 
> There’s as much water in Earth’s mantle as in all the oceans
> 
> Found! Hidden Ocean Locked Up Deep in Earth's Mantle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God doesn't say that.   A book written by iron age nomads says that.  The water exists, but where is the evidence that it spewed out of the Earth 5000 years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's God as only eyewitness evidence.  There is evidence of marine fossils on top of Mt. Everest and the Himalayas were formed then.  How else does a planet get covered by 3/4 water on the surface?  There is no other planet like it in the universe.  Just like aliens, you won't find a planet like it.  You'll die like Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking and the other schmoes who believed in aliens and watery surfaced planets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think I might have broke Hollie!
Click to expand...


I think you give yourself too much credit for cutting and pasting.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're so gullible as to believe a silly youtube video, utterly unsupported, that's your choice. Just don't presume to foist your gullibility on others
> 
> 
> 
> Tou should do your homework science denier. Do you think the intent of that video, or the article was to prove the flood?
> Most idiots/tards think the flood was caused solely by 40 days of rain, but the truth is, GOD says he "opened the fountains of the deep."
> 
> The existence of this great body of water is FACT. Deny all you want, denier.
> 
> Rare Diamond Confirms That Earth's Mantle Holds an Ocean's Worth of Water
> 
> There’s as much water in Earth’s mantle as in all the oceans
> 
> Found! Hidden Ocean Locked Up Deep in Earth's Mantle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God doesn't say that.   A book written by iron age nomads says that.  The water exists, but where is the evidence that it spewed out of the Earth 5000 years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's God as only eyewitness evidence.  There is evidence of marine fossils on top of Mt. Everest and the Himalayas were formed then.  How else does a planet get covered by 3/4 water on the surface?  There is no other planet like it in the universe.  Just like aliens, you won't find a planet like it.  You'll die like Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking and the other schmoes who believed in aliens and watery surfaced planets.
Click to expand...


Mountains form by a geologic process known as uplift. Mount Everest is much older than 6,000 years, meaning that mountain chains are formed over geologic time framws being pushed upward over millions of years.


----------



## Hollie

evenflow1969 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science sure does upset the God Haters!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Science is simply not concerned with supernaturalism. Nothing in nature depicts supernaturalism. Every discovery in science has had a natural explanation.
> 
> Can you identify a single instance of supernaturalism - something in the natural world that has supernatural underpinnings. Belief in magic and superstition is irrational. There's no reason to accept magic and supernaturalism in place of well defined knowledge of the natural world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please rationalize special relitivity and and quantum entanglement then. Instantanious action from billions of light years away sure seems supernatural. Gving it a name and recognizing it's existance is a far cry from describing the mechanics of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if it _seems_ supernatural, it must be.
> 
> Your well researched and thoughtful argument seems to have convinced me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not saying that I agree with the bible and it's time line, but the informed realizes that not all is yet explained. I have yet to see an attempt at your rationalization.
Click to expand...


It’s not up to me to rationalize anything. The laws of nature work in the ways they do. While every mystery of the natural world has not been explained, there is no reason to believe that Zeus is sitting on a cloud and hand-waving every event in nature.


----------



## bripat9643

evenflow1969 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science sure does upset the God Haters!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Science is simply not concerned with supernaturalism. Nothing in nature depicts supernaturalism. Every discovery in science has had a natural explanation.
> 
> Can you identify a single instance of supernaturalism - something in the natural world that has supernatural underpinnings. Belief in magic and superstition is irrational. There's no reason to accept magic and supernaturalism in place of well defined knowledge of the natural world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please rationalize special relitivity and and quantum entanglement then. Instantanious action from billions of light years away sure seems supernatural. Gving it a name and recognizing it's existance is a far cry from describing the mechanics of it.
Click to expand...

Creationists "rationalize" the facts of nature.  Science simply notes them.


----------



## bripat9643

evenflow1969 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science sure does upset the God Haters!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Science is simply not concerned with supernaturalism. Nothing in nature depicts supernaturalism. Every discovery in science has had a natural explanation.
> 
> Can you identify a single instance of supernaturalism - something in the natural world that has supernatural underpinnings. Belief in magic and superstition is irrational. There's no reason to accept magic and supernaturalism in place of well defined knowledge of the natural world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please rationalize special relitivity and and quantum entanglement then. Instantanious action from billions of light years away sure seems supernatural. Gving it a name and recognizing it's existance is a far cry from describing the mechanics of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if it _seems_ supernatural, it must be.
> 
> Your well researched and thoughtful argument seems to have convinced me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not saying that I agree with the bible and it's time line, but the informed realizes that not all is yet explained. I have yet to see an attempt at your rationalization.
Click to expand...

If something isn't explained, that isn't proof that God did it.


----------



## bripat9643

evenflow1969 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're so gullible as to believe a silly youtube video, utterly unsupported, that's your choice. Just don't presume to foist your gullibility on others
> 
> 
> 
> Tou should do your homework science denier. Do you think the intent of that video, or the article was to prove the flood?
> Most idiots/tards think the flood was caused solely by 40 days of rain, but the truth is, GOD says he "opened the fountains of the deep."
> 
> The existence of this great body of water is FACT. Deny all you want, denier.
> 
> Rare Diamond Confirms That Earth's Mantle Holds an Ocean's Worth of Water
> 
> There’s as much water in Earth’s mantle as in all the oceans
> 
> Found! Hidden Ocean Locked Up Deep in Earth's Mantle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God doesn't say that.   A book written by iron age nomads says that.  The water exists, but where is the evidence that it spewed out of the Earth 5000 years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's God as only eyewitness evidence.  There is evidence of marine fossils on top of Mt. Everest and the Himalayas were formed then.  How else does a planet get covered by 3/4 water on the surface?  There is no other planet like it in the universe.  Just like aliens, you won't find a planet like it.  You'll die like Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking and the other schmoes who believed in aliens and watery surfaced planets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think I might have broke Hollie!
Click to expand...

Don't worry.  She's perfectly fine.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're so gullible as to believe a silly youtube video, utterly unsupported, that's your choice. Just don't presume to foist your gullibility on others
> 
> 
> 
> Tou should do your homework science denier. Do you think the intent of that video, or the article was to prove the flood?
> Most idiots/tards think the flood was caused solely by 40 days of rain, but the truth is, GOD says he "opened the fountains of the deep."
> 
> The existence of this great body of water is FACT. Deny all you want, denier.
> 
> Rare Diamond Confirms That Earth's Mantle Holds an Ocean's Worth of Water
> 
> There’s as much water in Earth’s mantle as in all the oceans
> 
> Found! Hidden Ocean Locked Up Deep in Earth's Mantle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God doesn't say that.   A book written by iron age nomads says that.  The water exists, but where is the evidence that it spewed out of the Earth 5000 years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's God as only eyewitness evidence.  There is evidence of marine fossils on top of Mt. Everest and the Himalayas were formed then.  How else does a planet get covered by 3/4 water on the surface?  There is no other planet like it in the universe.  Just like aliens, you won't find a planet like it.  You'll die like Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking and the other schmoes who believed in aliens and watery surfaced planets.
Click to expand...

You spewed about a dozen claims, none of which you can support with evidence.  

How do you know there is no other planet like Earth?  Obviously you don't.

Water is common in the universe.  There's nothing surprising about a planet covered with water.  There are two moons in our solar system that are covered with water.


----------



## Death Angel

Boy I sure triggered the God/Science deniers!


----------



## Likkmee




----------



## evenflow1969

bripat9643 said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science sure does upset the God Haters!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Science is simply not concerned with supernaturalism. Nothing in nature depicts supernaturalism. Every discovery in science has had a natural explanation.
> 
> Can you identify a single instance of supernaturalism - something in the natural world that has supernatural underpinnings. Belief in magic and superstition is irrational. There's no reason to accept magic and supernaturalism in place of well defined knowledge of the natural world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please rationalize special relitivity and and quantum entanglement then. Instantanious action from billions of light years away sure seems supernatural. Gving it a name and recognizing it's existance is a far cry from describing the mechanics of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if it _seems_ supernatural, it must be.
> 
> Your well researched and thoughtful argument seems to have convinced me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not saying that I agree with the bible and it's time line, but the informed realizes that not all is yet explained. I have yet to see an attempt at your rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If something isn't explained, that isn't proof that God did it.
Click to expand...

I agree. Not evidence the he did not either. The jury is sill out as far as I am concerned. The realm of possibility includes god as a possibility. My beliefs are still a work in progress.


----------



## Death Angel




----------



## Hollie

Death Angel said:


>




Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition


----------



## bripat9643

evenflow1969 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Science is simply not concerned with supernaturalism. Nothing in nature depicts supernaturalism. Every discovery in science has had a natural explanation.
> 
> Can you identify a single instance of supernaturalism - something in the natural world that has supernatural underpinnings. Belief in magic and superstition is irrational. There's no reason to accept magic and supernaturalism in place of well defined knowledge of the natural world.
> 
> 
> 
> Please rationalize special relitivity and and quantum entanglement then. Instantanious action from billions of light years away sure seems supernatural. Gving it a name and recognizing it's existance is a far cry from describing the mechanics of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if it _seems_ supernatural, it must be.
> 
> Your well researched and thoughtful argument seems to have convinced me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not saying that I agree with the bible and it's time line, but the informed realizes that not all is yet explained. I have yet to see an attempt at your rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If something isn't explained, that isn't proof that God did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. Not evidence the he did not either. The jury is sill out as far as I am concerned. The realm of possibility includes god as a possibility. My beliefs are still a work in progress.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that God did it, period. Absence of evidence is not evidence that God did it.  Words in some ancient tome aren't evidence of anything.


----------



## The Irish Ram

alang1216 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only were there no Christians in existence in 150 BC, there was no such thing as crucifixion either.  No hand and feet piercing, No hanging people on trees.  It was unheard of in 150 BC.
> 
> 
> 
> FYI:
> The Greeks were generally opposed to performing crucifixions.[67] However, in his _Histories_, ix.120–122, the Greek writer Herodotus describes the execution of a Persian general at the hands of Athenians in about 479 BC: "*They nailed him to a plank and hung him up* ... this Artayctes who suffered death by crucifixion."[68] The _Commentary on Herodotus_ by How and Wells remarks: "They crucified him with hands and feet stretched out and nailed to cross-pieces; cf. vii.33. This barbarity, unusual on the part of Greeks, may be explained by the enormity of the outrage or by Athenian deference to local feeling."[69]
> 
> The Jewish king Alexander Jannaeus, king of Judea from 103 BC to 76 BC, crucified 800 rebels, said to be Pharisees, in the middle of Jerusalem.[72][73]
> 
> Alexander the Great is reputed to have crucified 2,000 survivors from his siege of the Phoenician city of Tyre,[74]​
Click to expand...


Sorry, I didn't proof read. 1500 BC, not 150 BC.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dead Sea Scrolls prove you wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> What a ridiculous notion. That is like saying that the book of James proves the book of genesis is factual. This is really , truly embarrassingly bad logic.
Click to expand...


No it isn't. The DSS's and the Bible are 2 different groups of manuscripts,  that record the same thing in real time, proving that what is in the Bible was was written prior to 70 AD.  
 It  has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with archaeology.
 The importance of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that it *disproves* the "theory" that the Bible was penned centuries after the fact.
 If the Bible was written centuries after Christ and His disciples,  the forger would then have had to locate ancient papyrus and parchment and copper forged in the 1st century.  Then make ancient ink,  copy his forgery and then go bury this one somewhere not to be discovered for 2,000 years, to corroborate his other 3 or 4th century fake.  
The Scrolls are real. And predate the destruction of the Temple. So does the Bible.


----------



## alang1216

The Irish Ram said:


> Sorry, I didn't proof read. 1500 BC, not 150 BC.


BS.  You were talking about the age of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is about 150 BC.  Man up and admit that, while God's other predictions may (or may not) be spot on, this is NOT an example of an accurate prediction.  False witness?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The Irish Ram said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dead Sea Scrolls prove you wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> What a ridiculous notion. That is like saying that the book of James proves the book of genesis is factual. This is really , truly embarrassingly bad logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isn't. The DSS's and the Bible are 2 different groups of manuscripts,  that record the same thing in real time, proving that what is in the Bible was was written prior to 70 AD.
> It  has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with archaeology.
> The importance of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that it *disproves* the "theory" that the Bible was penned centuries after the fact.
> If the Bible was written centuries after Christ and His disciples,  the forger would then have had to locate ancient papyrus and parchment and copper forged in the 1st century.  Then make ancient ink,  copy his forgery and then go bury this one somewhere not to be discovered for 2,000 years, to corroborate his other 3 or 4th century fake.
> The Scrolls are real. And predate the destruction of the Temple. So does the Bible.
Click to expand...

It's circular horseshit. No different than when some goober here posts a link to an op-ed with the same opinion as support for his own opinion. You just think your case is more "special" because the documents are "ancient and mysterious"...adults shouldn't be swayed by such nonsense...


----------



## The Irish Ram

alang1216 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I didn't proof read. 1500 BC, not 150 BC.
> 
> 
> 
> BS.  You were talking about the age of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is about 150 BC.  Man up and admit that, while God's other predictions may (or may not) be spot on, this is NOT an example of an accurate prediction.  False witness?
Click to expand...


What I was talking about was the practice of  crucifixion.  *That* is what you referred  to.  Your response *addressed crucifixion, * not the Dead Sea Scrolls. 

Here is the prophesy:


> Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; *they pierce my hands and my feet*.


That prophesy was made  prior to 1,000 BC, and is for the most part attributed to King David who was dead by 970 BC.  When the prophesy was made, crucifixion was unheard of. 

If you don't care for that prophesy, here are some more made during the time of David:

BC: "He trusts in the LORD," they say, "let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him."
AD: "He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him."

BC:  "They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment."
AD:  " When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots."

You work on those 2 and I'll be back with a bunch more.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The Irish Ram said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I didn't proof read. 1500 BC, not 150 BC.
> 
> 
> 
> BS.  You were talking about the age of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is about 150 BC.  Man up and admit that, while God's other predictions may (or may not) be spot on, this is NOT an example of an accurate prediction.  False witness?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I was talking about was the practice of  crucifixion.  *That* is what you referred  to.  Your response *addressed crucifixion, * not the Dead Sea Scrolls.
> 
> Here is the prophesy:
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; *they pierce my hands and my feet*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That prophesy was made  prior to 1,000 BC, and is for the most part attributed to King David who was dead by 970 BC.  When the prophesy was made, crucifixion was unheard of.
> 
> If you don't care for that prophesy, here are some more made during the time of David:
> 
> BC: "He trusts in the LORD," they say, "let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him."
> AD: "He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him."
> 
> BC:  "They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment."
> AD:  " When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots."
> 
> You work on those 2 and I'll be back with a bunch more.
Click to expand...

But this is a stupid argument entirely, as , to grant some ancient person any such apparently magical power, one would have to discuss the mountain of magical nonsense in particular that never came to pass outside of the imagination of the writers and account for it. So just the very fact that you jave to bend over backwards to cherry pick an overwrought, thrice-translated coincidence shows the utterly baseless and desperate nature of your efforts .

This is like the guy who wakes up every day and claims it is going to rain ..then, when it does, gullible fools fall at his feet and call him a prophet...


----------



## Hollie

The Irish Ram said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I didn't proof read. 1500 BC, not 150 BC.
> 
> 
> 
> BS.  You were talking about the age of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is about 150 BC.  Man up and admit that, while God's other predictions may (or may not) be spot on, this is NOT an example of an accurate prediction.  False witness?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I was talking about was the practice of  crucifixion.  *That* is what you referred  to.  Your response *addressed crucifixion, * not the Dead Sea Scrolls.
> 
> Here is the prophesy:
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; *they pierce my hands and my feet*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That prophesy was made  prior to 1,000 BC, and is for the most part attributed to King David who was dead by 970 BC.  When the prophesy was made, crucifixion was unheard of.
> 
> If you don't care for that prophesy, here are some more made during the time of David:
> 
> BC: "He trusts in the LORD," they say, "let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him."
> AD: "He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him."
> 
> BC:  "They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment."
> AD:  " When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots."
> 
> You work on those 2 and I'll be back with a bunch more.
Click to expand...


Crucifixion was done by nails through the wrist.


----------



## alang1216

The Irish Ram said:


> If you don't care for that prophesy, here are some more made during the time of David:
> 
> BC: "He trusts in the LORD," they say, "let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him."
> AD: "He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him."
> 
> BC:  "They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment."
> AD:  " When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots."
> 
> You work on those 2 and I'll be back with a bunch more.


I'll pass on the first, I don't know if it is even a prophecy.  As for the second and subsequent 'prophecies' don't trouble yourself since my answer will likely be the same.

Followers of Jesus gave up trying to convince Jews that Jesus was the messiah and even calling themselves Jews in the decades after Jesus died.  Jews were looking for a Messiah to free them from the Romans and Jesus was not what they expected.  Christians did much better among the pagans but to convert them they wanted the gravitas of an ancient religion and Judaism fit that bill.  Christian dogma evolved after Jesus' death and in areas where Jesus' story was unknown.  It was easy to enhance his biography with stories like the one above or Jesus arriving in Jerusalem on an ass.  Miracles and the whole virgin birth and resurrection were added to impress the pagans with the power of this new god.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> How do you know there is no other planet like Earth? Obviously you don't.



smh.  We've been over this.  It's in Genesis and Noah's flood.  That's why there is no other planet like Earth.  Our probes have found it so.  Scientifically, we have the fine tuning facts to show that it does not happen.  Life is rare.  We can use probabilities to see if we'll find another planet like ours and chances of that are slim and none.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know there is no other planet like Earth? Obviously you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smh.  We've been over this.  It's in Genesis and Noah's flood.  That's why there is no other planet like Earth.  Our probes have found it so.  Scientifically, we have the fine tuning facts to show that it does not happen.  Life is rare.  We can use probabilities to see if we'll find another planet like ours and chances of that are slim and none.
Click to expand...


Such conclusions are rather premature. The scientific exploration of space is really a very young science. Radio telescopes and the Hubble are relatively new technologies within the last several decades.

Nothing about the universe shows fine tuning, unless you want to represent cometary bombardment of planets, meteor strikes (have you heard of that little dalliance on this planet that occured 65 million years age), cosmic radiation, galaxy collisions, etc., fine tuning.  The fact is, space is a hostile environment to life.

The discovery of life elsewhere in our solar system or elsewhere in our galaxy would be utterly devastating to the religious articles as “creation” is uniquely an earthly event. Send a probe to Mars, scan the universe with Hubble, explore space with radio telescopes and search for life off the planet Earth. This is what science is doing. What religionists are doing to establish their suppositions... well, forgive the irony, but, god only knows.


----------



## Mudda

Death Angel said:


> "The fountains of the deep."
> 
> The Great Flood occurred, not only because of the rain, ite also says the earth "opened up" and released the "fountains of the deep."
> 
> Another huge OCEAN deep within gave up its water for a time.
> 
> Did Geologists Discover ‘Fountains of the Deep’ From Genesis Flood?


Not what the article said. It said the opposite of your claim. Did you even read it?


----------



## Mudda

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know there is no other planet like Earth? Obviously you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smh.  We've been over this.  It's in Genesis and Noah's flood.  That's why there is no other planet like Earth.  Our probes have found it so.  Scientifically, we have the fine tuning facts to show that it does not happen.  Life is rare.  We can use probabilities to see if we'll find another planet like ours and chances of that are slim and none.
Click to expand...

We’ve searched an infinitesimal part of the universe. We haven’t even searched our own solar system properly yet. Are you an adult?


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> There are two moons in our solar system that are covered with water.



What you said isn't true.  Moreover, can you tell the difference between a planet and a moon?

I don't expect an answer because you're a .


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know there is no other planet like Earth? Obviously you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smh.  We've been over this.  It's in Genesis and Noah's flood.  That's why there is no other planet like Earth.  Our probes have found it so.  Scientifically, we have the fine tuning facts to show that it does not happen.  Life is rare.  We can use probabilities to see if we'll find another planet like ours and chances of that are slim and none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such conclusions are rather premature. The scientific exploration of space is really a very young science. Radio telescopes and the Hubble are relatively new technologies within the last several decades.
> 
> Nothing about the universe shows fine tuning, unless you want to represent cometary bombardment of planets, meteor strikes (have you heard of that little dalliance on this planet that occured 65 million years age), cosmic radiation, galaxy collisions, etc., fine tuning.  The fact is, space is a hostile environment to life.
> 
> The discovery of life elsewhere in our solar system or elsewhere in our galaxy would be utterly devastating to the religious articles as “creation” is uniquely an earthly event. Send a probe to Mars, scan the universe with Hubble, explore space with radio telescopes and search for life off the planet Earth. This is what science is doing. What religionists are doing to establish their suppositions... well, forgive the irony, but, god only knows.
Click to expand...


This is science that is observable, testable and falsifiable because it is based on fine tuning facts and probabilities.  I am predicting what we will not find in the future based on probabilities and what fine tuning parameters have to be met.  Let's just say that you do not understand what the Earth is comprised of and probabilities.  As for the rest, you believe in bull puckey, so that isn't my problem.  We have not observed life anywhere else nor evidence of what you claim on Earth.  Earth is special.  It isn't mediocre.  If it was mediocre in terms of habitability, then I would not say it.  However, the secular, i.e. atheist scientists, say that because the creation scientists say the Earth is special.  They are in denial of God and his beautiful, wonderful and SPECIAL creation.

The following is from theistic evos.  At least, they understand science if not how God does things.  It talks about Carl Sagan who died with the knowledge of no aliens and that he was wrong.  I predict that most of the non-believers will die the same way.

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mudda said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know there is no other planet like Earth? Obviously you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smh.  We've been over this.  It's in Genesis and Noah's flood.  That's why there is no other planet like Earth.  Our probes have found it so.  Scientifically, we have the fine tuning facts to show that it does not happen.  Life is rare.  We can use probabilities to see if we'll find another planet like ours and chances of that are slim and none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We’ve searched an infinitesimal part of the universe. We haven’t even searched our own solar system properly yet. Are you an adult?
Click to expand...

He has been told this many times before. Don't waste your time.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know there is no other planet like Earth? Obviously you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smh.  We've been over this.  It's in Genesis and Noah's flood.  That's why there is no other planet like Earth.  Our probes have found it so.  Scientifically, we have the fine tuning facts to show that it does not happen.  Life is rare.  We can use probabilities to see if we'll find another planet like ours and chances of that are slim and none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such conclusions are rather premature. The scientific exploration of space is really a very young science. Radio telescopes and the Hubble are relatively new technologies within the last several decades.
> 
> Nothing about the universe shows fine tuning, unless you want to represent cometary bombardment of planets, meteor strikes (have you heard of that little dalliance on this planet that occured 65 million years age), cosmic radiation, galaxy collisions, etc., fine tuning.  The fact is, space is a hostile environment to life.
> 
> The discovery of life elsewhere in our solar system or elsewhere in our galaxy would be utterly devastating to the religious articles as “creation” is uniquely an earthly event. Send a probe to Mars, scan the universe with Hubble, explore space with radio telescopes and search for life off the planet Earth. This is what science is doing. What religionists are doing to establish their suppositions... well, forgive the irony, but, god only knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is science that is observable, testable and falsifiable because it is based on fine tuning facts and probabilities.  I am predicting what we will not find in the future based on probabilities and what fine tuning parameters have to be met.  Let's just say that you do not understand what the Earth is comprised of and probabilities.  As for the rest, you believe in bull puckey, so that isn't my problem.  We have not observed life anywhere else nor evidence of what you claim on Earth.  Earth is special.  It isn't mediocre.  If it was mediocre in terms of habitability, then I would not say it.  However, the secular, i.e. atheist scientists, say that because the creation scientists say the Earth is special.  They are in denial of God and his beautiful, wonderful and SPECIAL creation.
> 
> The following is from theistic evos.  At least, they understand science if not how God does things.  It talks about Carl Sagan who died with the knowledge of no aliens and that he was wrong.  I predict that most of the non-believers will die the same way.
> 
> The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning
Click to expand...

None of that is actually evidence. You have been lied to again by another paid liar.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know there is no other planet like Earth? Obviously you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smh.  We've been over this.  It's in Genesis and Noah's flood.  That's why there is no other planet like Earth.  Our probes have found it so.  Scientifically, we have the fine tuning facts to show that it does not happen.  Life is rare.  We can use probabilities to see if we'll find another planet like ours and chances of that are slim and none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such conclusions are rather premature. The scientific exploration of space is really a very young science. Radio telescopes and the Hubble are relatively new technologies within the last several decades.
> 
> Nothing about the universe shows fine tuning, unless you want to represent cometary bombardment of planets, meteor strikes (have you heard of that little dalliance on this planet that occured 65 million years age), cosmic radiation, galaxy collisions, etc., fine tuning.  The fact is, space is a hostile environment to life.
> 
> The discovery of life elsewhere in our solar system or elsewhere in our galaxy would be utterly devastating to the religious articles as “creation” is uniquely an earthly event. Send a probe to Mars, scan the universe with Hubble, explore space with radio telescopes and search for life off the planet Earth. This is what science is doing. What religionists are doing to establish their suppositions... well, forgive the irony, but, god only knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is science that is observable, testable and falsifiable because it is based on fine tuning facts and probabilities.  I am predicting what we will not find in the future based on probabilities and what fine tuning parameters have to be met.  Let's just say that you do not understand what the Earth is comprised of and probabilities.  As for the rest, you believe in bull puckey, so that isn't my problem.  We have not observed life anywhere else nor evidence of what you claim on Earth.  Earth is special.  It isn't mediocre.  If it was mediocre in terms of habitability, then I would not say it.  However, the secular, i.e. atheist scientists, say that because the creation scientists say the Earth is special.  They are in denial of God and his beautiful, wonderful and SPECIAL creation.
> 
> The following is from theistic evos.  At least, they understand science if not how God does things.  It talks about Carl Sagan who died with the knowledge of no aliens and that he was wrong.  I predict that most of the non-believers will die the same way.
> 
> The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of that is actually evidence. You have been lied to again by another paid liar.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but why do you waste everyone's time? You offer no real observable proof. You have no interest in seeking GOD. You have no real questions only digs and insults. Just let people alone. It is obvious that you only know half a story and not the important half at that. If you are not interested in finding GOD, please don't hamper those who are.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> You offer no real observable proof.


Of accepted scientific theories, which only achieved that status...by being supported by mountains of evidence....? Not only have I presented evidence, i have even take the time to spoonfeed you basic facts that a child learns in elementary school.

You're welcome.

Good grief LittleNipper, you're almost as bad as lying-ass Bond. How can you say such incredibly stupid things?


----------



## K9Buck

Hollie said:


> The discovery of life elsewhere in our solar system or elsewhere in our galaxy would be utterly devastating to the religious articles as “creation” is uniquely an earthly event.



Not really.  The universe may very well be teeming with life.  All of it still needs a creator.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The discovery of life elsewhere in our solar system or elsewhere in our galaxy would be utterly devastating to the religious articles as “creation” is uniquely an earthly event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  The universe may very well be teeming with life.  All of it still needs a creator.
Click to expand...

You mean, you need a creator. Try to distinguish between your own fetishes and the rest of reality.


----------



## K9Buck

*Psalm 14 King James Version (KJV)*
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The discovery of life elsewhere in our solar system or elsewhere in our galaxy would be utterly devastating to the religious articles as “creation” is uniquely an earthly event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  The universe may very well be teeming with life.  All of it still needs a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean, you need a creator. Try to distinguish between your own fetishes and the rest of reality.
Click to expand...


Feel free to show me something in the universe that is capable of causing itself to come into existence.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The discovery of life elsewhere in our solar system or elsewhere in our galaxy would be utterly devastating to the religious articles as “creation” is uniquely an earthly event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  The universe may very well be teeming with life.  All of it still needs a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean, you need a creator. Try to distinguish between your own fetishes and the rest of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to show me something in the universe that is capable of causing itself to come into existence.
Click to expand...

Sure, just as soon as you show me a magical sky daddy creating something.

And you are making the same error you religious folks always make.  youare the only one claiming with any certainty to know how everything came into existence. The burden of proof lies with you.


----------



## cnm

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> What a ridiculous notion. That is like saying that the book of James proves the book of genesis is factual. This is really , truly embarrassingly bad logic.


Yet one sees it attempted so often.


----------



## cnm

Hollie said:


> Crucifixion was done by nails through the wrist.


When I checked it out I found there are many variations.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You offer no real observable proof.
> 
> 
> 
> Of accepted scientific theories, which only achieved that status...by being supported by mountains of evidence....? Not only have I presented evidence, i have even take the time to spoonfeed you basic facts that a child learns in elementary school.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> Good grief LittleNipper, you're almost as bad as lying-ass Bond. How can you say such incredibly stupid things?
Click to expand...

Words are cheap and the evidence has been demonstrated to go both ways. Stupidity is revealed with one's ultimate destiny.Time will tell.


----------



## cnm

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Not only have I presented evidence, i have even take the time to spoonfeed you [LittleNipper] basic facts that a child learns in elementary school.


Home schooling has a lot to answer for.


----------



## cnm

LittleNipper said:


> Words are cheap and the evidence has been demonstrated to go both ways.


The consensus of what the evidence shows is zero evidence for a creator.


----------



## justoffal

Death Angel said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're so gullible as to believe a silly youtube video, utterly unsupported, that's your choice. Just don't presume to foist your gullibility on others
> 
> 
> 
> Tou should do your homework science denier. Do you think the intent of that video, or the article was to prove the flood?
> Most idiots/tards think the flood was caused solely by 40 days of rain, but the truth is, GOD says he "opened the fountains of the deep."
> 
> The existence of this great body of water is FACT. Deny all you want, denier.
> 
> Rare Diamond Confirms That Earth's Mantle Holds an Ocean's Worth of Water
> 
> There’s as much water in Earth’s mantle as in all the oceans
> 
> Found! Hidden Ocean Locked Up Deep in Earth's Mantle
Click to expand...

 
You're scaring them....
Jo


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The discovery of life elsewhere in our solar system or elsewhere in our galaxy would be utterly devastating to the religious articles as “creation” is uniquely an earthly event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  The universe may very well be teeming with life.  All of it still needs a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean, you need a creator. Try to distinguish between your own fetishes and the rest of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to show me something in the universe that is capable of causing itself to come into existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, just as soon as you show me a magical sky daddy creating something.
> 
> And you are making the same error you religious folks always make.  youare the only one claiming with any certainty to know how everything came into existence. The burden of proof lies with you.
Click to expand...

The Universe obviously exists and so does life. Scientists have not been able to replicate anything of the sort. So the burden of proof lies with those who say that everything is the result of a natural occurrence...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Words are cheap and the evidence has been demonstrated to go both ways.


Shameless lie. Surely you don't think you are fooling anyone with this embarrassing lie. And scientific theories are more than "just words"...that's why you young earth charlatans can squawk and cry and dance and prance all day, and not one of you can put a dent in any of them.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Words are cheap and the evidence has been demonstrated to go both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> Shameless lie. Surely you don't think you are fooling anyone with this embarrassing lie. And scientific theories are more than "just words"...that's why you young earth charlatans can squawk and cry and dance and prance all day, and not one of you can put a dent in any of them.
Click to expand...

So you say --- more words. Scientific fact is observable and repeatable. Theory is not fact and that is your weakest link.


----------



## K9Buck

cnm said:


> The consensus of what the evidence shows is zero evidence for a creator.



Existence is the evidence for a creator, along with the universe and our lives.


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And you are making the same error you religious folks always make.  youare the only one claiming with any certainty to know how everything came into existence. The burden of proof lies with you.



It's not necessary for one to be an astrophysicist to come to the logical conclusion that a power outside of our universe had to have created said universe.  Nothing in this universe can cause itself to come into existence.  The PREPONDERANCE of the logic points to a creator, you're just too fucking stupid to make the connection.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Scientific fact is observable and repeatable. Theory is not fact and that is your weakest link.


See, this is what I am talking about. You don't even realize how dumb and wrong this is.

Scientific theories yield repeatable results. And yes, theories can become accepted as "fact".

Your comment regarding observations is ridiculous as well. Go ahead, measure the time for a rock to fall to earth. You will get 10 different answers. Every time. Which is "the fact"? The thing tying these measurements together is the scientific theory; therein lies your "fact". it is the theory that tells you rocks fall down every time, and why. It explains the range of measurements you will get, and why you get them. It explains why the rock always falls down and always does so at about the same speed.

Here is something "repeatable" for you:

The fossil record shows the same animals in the same layers. They generally do not appear before or after their own layer. And this is so everywhere we look. And everywhere we look, the layers are in the same order. Everywhere we look, we see the families of animals in the same chronological order, and can trace the changes in their physiology. We see the simpler, generalized vertebrates first, then the different families of vertebrates after. We see gills, then lungs. We see the dentition of two, distinct modern species or genera traced right back to their common origin (e.g., cats and dogs).

So, riddle me this, shaman...what is the "fact" in all of  that repeatable, reliable observation?

(Hint: it has been a well known scientific theory for 150 years)


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> t's not necessary for one to be an astrophysicist to come to the logical conclusion that a power outside of our universe had to have created said universe.


Well, that's for sure. One only needs a few dubious premises to argue that conclusion. That's the thing about logic: it's just a tool. With dubious premises, you can conclude ANYTHING.

That's why empiricism is required to actually know things.



K9Buck said:


> Nothing in this universe can cause itself to come into existence.


And there is the dubious premise. You don't actually know the truth of this. You just assert it as true.

I say, maybe it isn't. Maybe it is.

Another easy solution to that without a creator is that the universe is eternal. Yet another is that it's not only eternal, but circular. Yet another is to say you have merely replaced one mystery with another. Yet another is that the universe is finite, but itself created by a separate, infinite universe. There are many more.

So, even if one is polite enough to accept your "divine knowledge" of the truth of your premise (I'm not), it STILL would not follow that there must be a creator god.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> The Universe obviously exists and so does life. Scientists have not been able to replicate anything of the sort.


So what? They also cannot replicate star formation, or a volcano, or a particle in place and time. They also cannot replicate a planet's iron core, or a comet. That doesn't mean they can't find other ways of understanding them.

So really, this is an absurd standard you reserve only for when you are tasked with trying to undermine science in favor of your preferred brand of magical dogma.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Existence is the evidence for a creator, along with the universe and our lives.


Another dubious premise. I say it isn't. And the fact that you can't rule my position out to any degree whatsoever using the alleged "evidence" shows us this is actually not  "evidence" at all.


----------



## Death Angel

justoffal said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're so gullible as to believe a silly youtube video, utterly unsupported, that's your choice. Just don't presume to foist your gullibility on others
> 
> 
> 
> Tou should do your homework science denier. Do you think the intent of that video, or the article was to prove the flood?
> Most idiots/tards think the flood was caused solely by 40 days of rain, but the truth is, GOD says he "opened the fountains of the deep."
> 
> The existence of this great body of water is FACT. Deny all you want, denier.
> 
> Rare Diamond Confirms That Earth's Mantle Holds an Ocean's Worth of Water
> 
> There’s as much water in Earth’s mantle as in all the oceans
> 
> Found! Hidden Ocean Locked Up Deep in Earth's Mantle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're scaring them....
> Jo
Click to expand...

It's ok. God promised he wouldn't wipe out Mankind again with water.

But He did warn us that we will almost wipe ourselves out with fire and Our own inhumanity.

He promised to rescue us from ourselves before every last human being dies though.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Death Angel said:


> But He did warn us that we will almost wipe ourselves out with fire and Our own inhumanity.


So did plenty of atheists.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two moons in our solar system that are covered with water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you said isn't true.  Moreover, can you tell the difference between a planet and a moon?
> 
> I don't expect an answer because you're a .
Click to expand...

It is true. Europa and Enceladus are both completely covered by a layer of water than then a layer of ice.  Check it out on Wiki before you make a fool of yourself.

Enceladus - Wikipedia

Europa (moon) - Wikipedia


----------



## bripat9643

K9Buck said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The discovery of life elsewhere in our solar system or elsewhere in our galaxy would be utterly devastating to the religious articles as “creation” is uniquely an earthly event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  The universe may very well be teeming with life.  All of it still needs a creator.
Click to expand...

Nope.


----------



## cnm

LittleNipper said:


> So the burden of proof lies with those who say that everything is the result of a natural occurrence...


Who says that?


----------



## bripat9643

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know there is no other planet like Earth? Obviously you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smh.  We've been over this.  It's in Genesis and Noah's flood.  That's why there is no other planet like Earth.  Our probes have found it so.  Scientifically, we have the fine tuning facts to show that it does not happen.  Life is rare.  We can use probabilities to see if we'll find another planet like ours and chances of that are slim and none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such conclusions are rather premature. The scientific exploration of space is really a very young science. Radio telescopes and the Hubble are relatively new technologies within the last several decades.
> 
> Nothing about the universe shows fine tuning, unless you want to represent cometary bombardment of planets, meteor strikes (have you heard of that little dalliance on this planet that occured 65 million years age), cosmic radiation, galaxy collisions, etc., fine tuning.  The fact is, space is a hostile environment to life.
> 
> The discovery of life elsewhere in our solar system or elsewhere in our galaxy would be utterly devastating to the religious articles as “creation” is uniquely an earthly event. Send a probe to Mars, scan the universe with Hubble, explore space with radio telescopes and search for life off the planet Earth. This is what science is doing. What religionists are doing to establish their suppositions... well, forgive the irony, but, god only knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is science that is observable, testable and falsifiable because it is based on fine tuning facts and probabilities.  I am predicting what we will not find in the future based on probabilities and what fine tuning parameters have to be met.  Let's just say that you do not understand what the Earth is comprised of and probabilities.  As for the rest, you believe in bull puckey, so that isn't my problem.  We have not observed life anywhere else nor evidence of what you claim on Earth.  Earth is special.  It isn't mediocre.  If it was mediocre in terms of habitability, then I would not say it.  However, the secular, i.e. atheist scientists, say that because the creation scientists say the Earth is special.  They are in denial of God and his beautiful, wonderful and SPECIAL creation.
> 
> The following is from theistic evos.  At least, they understand science if not how God does things.  It talks about Carl Sagan who died with the knowledge of no aliens and that he was wrong.  I predict that most of the non-believers will die the same way.
> 
> The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of that is actually evidence. You have been lied to again by another paid liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry, but why do you waste everyone's time? You offer no real observable proof. You have no interest in seeking GOD. You have no real questions only digs and insults. Just let people alone. It is obvious that you only know half a story and not the important half at that. If you are not interested in finding GOD, please don't hamper those who are.
Click to expand...

What would you consider "real observable proof?"


----------



## cnm

K9Buck said:


> Existence is the evidence for a creator, along with the universe and our lives.


I love the smell of tautology in the morning, it smells like....Breezewood.


----------



## bripat9643

cnm said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the burden of proof lies with those who say that everything is the result of a natural occurrence...
> 
> 
> 
> Who says that?
Click to expand...

I do, for one.


----------



## cnm

K9Buck said:


> It's not necessary for one to be an astrophysicist to come to the logical conclusion that a power outside of our universe had to have created said universe.


Absolutely. One merely has to invent an entity.


----------



## cnm

bripat9643 said:


> I do, for one.


On what evidence?


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> But He did warn us that we will almost wipe ourselves out with fire and Our own inhumanity.
> 
> 
> 
> So did plenty of atheists.
Click to expand...


The pride of the 20th century.


----------



## K9Buck

cnm said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not necessary for one to be an astrophysicist to come to the logical conclusion that a power outside of our universe had to have created said universe.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. One merely has to invent an entity.
Click to expand...


A creator.


----------



## bripat9643

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The discovery of life elsewhere in our solar system or elsewhere in our galaxy would be utterly devastating to the religious articles as “creation” is uniquely an earthly event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  The universe may very well be teeming with life.  All of it still needs a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean, you need a creator. Try to distinguish between your own fetishes and the rest of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to show me something in the universe that is capable of causing itself to come into existence.
Click to expand...


God?


----------



## bripat9643

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You offer no real observable proof.
> 
> 
> 
> Of accepted scientific theories, which only achieved that status...by being supported by mountains of evidence....? Not only have I presented evidence, i have even take the time to spoonfeed you basic facts that a child learns in elementary school.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> Good grief LittleNipper, you're almost as bad as lying-ass Bond. How can you say such incredibly stupid things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Words are cheap and the evidence has been demonstrated to go both ways. Stupidity is revealed with one's ultimate destiny.Time will tell.
Click to expand...

All the evidence goes one way:  against a creator.


----------



## bripat9643

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The discovery of life elsewhere in our solar system or elsewhere in our galaxy would be utterly devastating to the religious articles as “creation” is uniquely an earthly event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  The universe may very well be teeming with life.  All of it still needs a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean, you need a creator. Try to distinguish between your own fetishes and the rest of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to show me something in the universe that is capable of causing itself to come into existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, just as soon as you show me a magical sky daddy creating something.
> 
> And you are making the same error you religious folks always make.  youare the only one claiming with any certainty to know how everything came into existence. The burden of proof lies with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Universe obviously exists and so does life. Scientists have not been able to replicate anything of the sort. So the burden of proof lies with those who say that everything is the result of a natural occurrence...
Click to expand...

Sorry, but those who claim some gaseous vertebrate with a penis deserves all the credit have the burden of proof.


----------



## bripat9643

K9Buck said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> The consensus of what the evidence shows is zero evidence for a creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Existence is the evidence for a creator, along with the universe and our lives.
Click to expand...

Wrong.


----------



## cnm

K9Buck said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not necessary for one to be an astrophysicist to come to the logical conclusion that a power outside of our universe had to have created said universe.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. One merely has to invent an entity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A creator.
Click to expand...

Yes, your invention.


----------



## bripat9643

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are making the same error you religious folks always make.  youare the only one claiming with any certainty to know how everything came into existence. The burden of proof lies with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not necessary for one to be an astrophysicist to come to the logical conclusion that a power outside of our universe had to have created said universe.  Nothing in this universe can cause itself to come into existence.  The PREPONDERANCE of the logic points to a creator, you're just too fucking stupid to make the connection.
Click to expand...

If everything must have a creator, then the creator must also have a  creator.  If you deny that conclusion, then you deny that everything must have a creator.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> The pride of the 20th century


And the -5th: Socrates - Wikipedia


----------



## K9Buck

bripat9643 said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are making the same error you religious folks always make.  youare the only one claiming with any certainty to know how everything came into existence. The burden of proof lies with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not necessary for one to be an astrophysicist to come to the logical conclusion that a power outside of our universe had to have created said universe.  Nothing in this universe can cause itself to come into existence.  The PREPONDERANCE of the logic points to a creator, you're just too fucking stupid to make the connection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If everything must have a creator, then the creator must also have a  creator.  If you deny that conclusion, then you deny that everything must have a creator.
Click to expand...


What was the first uncaused cause?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bripat9643 said:


> If everything must have a creator, then the creator must also have a creator.


But then he says everything but the creator needs a creator. And then some vague reference to Aquinas will follow.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> What was the first uncaused cause?


Correct answer: I don't know. I don't know if there even was a first uncaused cause.


----------



## bripat9643

K9Buck said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are making the same error you religious folks always make.  youare the only one claiming with any certainty to know how everything came into existence. The burden of proof lies with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not necessary for one to be an astrophysicist to come to the logical conclusion that a power outside of our universe had to have created said universe.  Nothing in this universe can cause itself to come into existence.  The PREPONDERANCE of the logic points to a creator, you're just too fucking stupid to make the connection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If everything must have a creator, then the creator must also have a  creator.  If you deny that conclusion, then you deny that everything must have a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was the first uncaused cause?
Click to expand...

What caused God?


----------



## K9Buck

cnm said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not necessary for one to be an astrophysicist to come to the logical conclusion that a power outside of our universe had to have created said universe.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. One merely has to invent an entity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, your invention.
Click to expand...


Well, if there is no creator, then we're forced to believe that existence came about on its own, which is impossible.   Like I said, it doesn't take an astrophysicist.


----------



## K9Buck

bripat9643 said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are making the same error you religious folks always make.  youare the only one claiming with any certainty to know how everything came into existence. The burden of proof lies with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not necessary for one to be an astrophysicist to come to the logical conclusion that a power outside of our universe had to have created said universe.  Nothing in this universe can cause itself to come into existence.  The PREPONDERANCE of the logic points to a creator, you're just too fucking stupid to make the connection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If everything must have a creator, then the creator must also have a  creator.  If you deny that conclusion, then you deny that everything must have a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was the first uncaused cause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What caused God?
Click to expand...


You don't want to answer my question?


----------



## bripat9643

K9Buck said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not necessary for one to be an astrophysicist to come to the logical conclusion that a power outside of our universe had to have created said universe.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. One merely has to invent an entity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, your invention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if there is no creator, then we're forced to believe that existence came about on its own, which is impossible.   Like I said, it doesn't take an astrophysicist.
Click to expand...

If it's impossible, then where did God come from?


----------



## bripat9643

K9Buck said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are making the same error you religious folks always make.  youare the only one claiming with any certainty to know how everything came into existence. The burden of proof lies with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not necessary for one to be an astrophysicist to come to the logical conclusion that a power outside of our universe had to have created said universe.  Nothing in this universe can cause itself to come into existence.  The PREPONDERANCE of the logic points to a creator, you're just too fucking stupid to make the connection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If everything must have a creator, then the creator must also have a  creator.  If you deny that conclusion, then you deny that everything must have a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was the first uncaused cause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What caused God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't want to answer my question?
Click to expand...

I agree with the answer Fort Fun Indiana gave you.


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was the first uncaused cause?
> 
> 
> 
> Correct answer: I don't know. I don't know if there even was a first uncaused cause.
Click to expand...


We know that the universe had a beginning.  What caused it to come into existence?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Well, if there is no creator, then we're forced to believe that existence came about on its own, which is impossible.


Which is just another restatement of your dubious premise. Notice this is all you are left with...your "Alamo"...to stomp your feet and insist it is impossible...


----------



## K9Buck

bripat9643 said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not necessary for one to be an astrophysicist to come to the logical conclusion that a power outside of our universe had to have created said universe.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. One merely has to invent an entity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, your invention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if there is no creator, then we're forced to believe that existence came about on its own, which is impossible.   Like I said, it doesn't take an astrophysicist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it's impossible, then where did God come from?
Click to expand...


Do we agree that there had to be something, or someone, that has always existed and who didn't need another to cause it to exist?


----------



## cnm

K9Buck said:


> Like I said, it doesn't take an astrophysicist.


No, just one of weak logic.


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if there is no creator, then we're forced to believe that existence came about on its own, which is impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is just another restatement of your dubious premise. Notice this is all you are left with...your "Alamo"...to stomp your feet and insist it is impossible...
Click to expand...


It's a "dubious" premise to state that there is nothing that can cause itself to come into existence?  Ok, genius, show me.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> We know that the universe had a beginning.


No we don't. We think all we can observe had a beginning. But that doesn't mean "nothing" preceded that beginning.

This is yet another dubious premise...something  you insist, unqualified, as true. Then it is left to everyone else to sift through what you actually mean, and what we actually know.


----------



## cnm

K9Buck said:


> Do we agree that there had to be something, or someone, that has always existed and who didn't need another to cause it to exist?


Any evidence?


----------



## K9Buck

cnm said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, it doesn't take an astrophysicist.
> 
> 
> 
> No, just one of weak logic.
Click to expand...


It's logical to believe that the universe caused itself to come into existence?  Sorry, but I stopped believing childhood fairy tales when I was 7.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> It's a "dubious" premise to state that there is nothing that can cause itself to come into existence?


Correct. It is unqualified and unsupported as a fact, save for determinism in what we can observe within our finite horizon. Furthermore, when extrapolated to "everything there is", there is no good reason to assume a beginning.

But you certainly don't mind imagining something that has no beginning; you only mind when others do so. I see you have rigged the game nicely for yourself that way.


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know that the universe had a beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> No we don't. We think all we can observe had a beginning. But that doesn't mean "nothing" preceded that beginning.
> 
> This is yet another dubious premise...something  you insist, unqualified, as true. Then it is left to everyone else to sift through what you actually mean, and what we actually know.
Click to expand...


Now you're in "prove that we're having this conversation" territory.  Thanks for playing.


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a "dubious" premise to state that there is nothing that can cause itself to come into existence?
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. It is unqualified and unsupported as a fact, save for determinism in what we can observe within our finite horizon. Furthermore, when extrapolated ro "everything there is", there is no good reason to assume a beginning.
Click to expand...


The onus is upon you to demonstrate something that can cause itself to come into existence.   You can't because your belief system defies logic and science.


----------



## K9Buck

cnm said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we agree that there had to be something, or someone, that has always existed and who didn't need another to cause it to exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Any evidence?
Click to expand...


Yea, their creation.


----------



## cnm

K9Buck said:


> It's logical to believe that the universe caused itself to come into existence? Sorry, but I stopped believing childhood fairy tales when I was 7.


Only with evidence. I don't know. You invent sky fairies.


----------



## cnm

K9Buck said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we agree that there had to be something, or someone, that has always existed and who didn't need another to cause it to exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Any evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea, their creation.
Click to expand...

How is 'their' creation evidence 'they' were not created?


----------



## bripat9643

K9Buck said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. One merely has to invent an entity.
> 
> 
> 
> A creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, your invention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if there is no creator, then we're forced to believe that existence came about on its own, which is impossible.   Like I said, it doesn't take an astrophysicist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it's impossible, then where did God come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we agree that there had to be something, or someone, that has always existed and who didn't need another to cause it to exist?
Click to expand...


So you're saying that not everything has a cause?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Now you're in "prove that we're having this conversation" territory.


And you are in "proving a magical sky daddy designed all of it" territory.

And you are wrong anyway, as you have inverted your logic. You are conflating the idea that even a wealth of evidence doesn't mean something is absolutely certain ("our conversation") with my actual idea that we actually have little to no evidence of "all there is", and of that everything had a beginning.

But you claim to have all the evidence you will ever need. Good for you. You would have said the same thing with the same arguments in the year 100. I, however, do not accept that there had to be a creator, itself infinite. This is your simple assertion, and i reject it. You have not a shred of evidence that this is so, much less any support for some kind of design. It can all be explained other ways. And every time anything is explained, you operate within the new framework of knowledge. Because you have no choice, lest you be taken for a fool.

And really, that's fine by me. Fine, assert a creator. It doesn't really get in the way to do so. To borrow your phrase, "it doesn't take an astrophysicist" to point at something and cackle, "god did that!"


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> The onus is upon you to demonstrate something that can cause itself to come into existence.


In order to assert it as possible? No it isn't. You are the one asserting it is impossible. You have it backwards.

And I would like you to describe precisely what sort of thing you are asking for as "proof". You "never something from nothing" guys like to move the bar a lot. I suppose you have that luxury, when you have "magic!" at your rhetorical disposal.

When we learned that particles can pop into existence in empty space, you just moved the bar to say, "that's not from nothing". When we learned it possible that our entire, observable universe (and a lot we can't yet observe, but will eventually) could "pop" into existence from nothing (no space, no time, no energy), you simply moved the bar to say that's not "from nothing". Of course, not a single one of you dares to explain what there is instead of "nothing", or to produce any science to back up such an assertion.

But again...who cares? Your stance contributes nothing to science and gets in the way of nothing in science.

There's your "nothing", haha


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know there is no other planet like Earth? Obviously you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smh.  We've been over this.  It's in Genesis and Noah's flood.  That's why there is no other planet like Earth.  Our probes have found it so.  Scientifically, we have the fine tuning facts to show that it does not happen.  Life is rare.  We can use probabilities to see if we'll find another planet like ours and chances of that are slim and none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such conclusions are rather premature. The scientific exploration of space is really a very young science. Radio telescopes and the Hubble are relatively new technologies within the last several decades.
> 
> Nothing about the universe shows fine tuning, unless you want to represent cometary bombardment of planets, meteor strikes (have you heard of that little dalliance on this planet that occured 65 million years age), cosmic radiation, galaxy collisions, etc., fine tuning.  The fact is, space is a hostile environment to life.
> 
> The discovery of life elsewhere in our solar system or elsewhere in our galaxy would be utterly devastating to the religious articles as “creation” is uniquely an earthly event. Send a probe to Mars, scan the universe with Hubble, explore space with radio telescopes and search for life off the planet Earth. This is what science is doing. What religionists are doing to establish their suppositions... well, forgive the irony, but, god only knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is science that is observable, testable and falsifiable because it is based on fine tuning facts and probabilities.  I am predicting what we will not find in the future based on probabilities and what fine tuning parameters have to be met.  Let's just say that you do not understand what the Earth is comprised of and probabilities.  As for the rest, you believe in bull puckey, so that isn't my problem.  We have not observed life anywhere else nor evidence of what you claim on Earth.  Earth is special.  It isn't mediocre.  If it was mediocre in terms of habitability, then I would not say it.  However, the secular, i.e. atheist scientists, say that because the creation scientists say the Earth is special.  They are in denial of God and his beautiful, wonderful and SPECIAL creation.
> 
> The following is from theistic evos.  At least, they understand science if not how God does things.  It talks about Carl Sagan who died with the knowledge of no aliens and that he was wrong.  I predict that most of the non-believers will die the same way.
> 
> The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of that is actually evidence. You have been lied to again by another paid liar.
Click to expand...


It's evidence found by Stephen Hawking and his people.  Are you calling them paid liars?  It's so _hot_ that they chose to deliberately ignore it and go with multiverses lie-pothesis in order make the odds better for the Earth not being special.  To the contrary, the Earth and Sun are special.  Earth is special because it hosts a wide variety of life and intelligent life.  What other planet has that?  None.  It also has the following characteristics which the secular scientists have not been able to find:

the existence of water at the Earth’s surface—neither too much nor too little—that is in liquid form
proximity to the sun—neither too much heat nor too little
system of plate tectonics that enables the carbon-silicate cycle regulating temperature
the right size—large enough to hang on to its atmosphere, but not so large to hold on to too much atmosphere and consequently too much heat
its protection by “big brother Jupiter,” whose gravity helps divert and vacuum up incoming debris and keep Earth safe
the moon’s stabilizing effect on our planetary rotation, which prevents the poles from shifting unexpectedly
The Earth's solar flares are just right.  If not, then the believers and non-believers would all be roasted "sitting ducks."

What Makes Earth So Unique?

Stellar Superflare Reminder: Our Sun Is Special


----------



## james bond

cnm said:


> The consensus of what the evidence shows is zero evidence for a creator.



Wrong.  You got it ass-backwards.  The evidence shows zero evidence for big bang and abiogenesis.  There is even more mountains of evidence against macroevolution, evolutionary thinking and history.  More people believe in a creator than multiverses or aliens.  Besides, how can some natural or physical event start the beginning of space and time?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know there is no other planet like Earth? Obviously you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smh.  We've been over this.  It's in Genesis and Noah's flood.  That's why there is no other planet like Earth.  Our probes have found it so.  Scientifically, we have the fine tuning facts to show that it does not happen.  Life is rare.  We can use probabilities to see if we'll find another planet like ours and chances of that are slim and none.
Click to expand...

What you fail to understand is that Genesis doesn't mean jack to a rational person.   Genesis is fiction.  It's a collection of stories conceived of by savages.  It's not science. When you refer to Genesis, you may as well refer to Alice in Wonderland, for all the scientific relevance it has.

Our probes are not capable of determining whether planets circling other stars are like Earth, so that claim is utterly fatuous.

What the hell are "fine tuning facts?"  At this point we have no idea what the frequency of life in the galaxy is.  Your claims are based on complete ignorance.  You can't use "probabilities" when you have no clue what they are.

You are spouting terms when you have no clue about their true meaning.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> The consensus of what the evidence shows is zero evidence for a creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  You got it ass-backwards.  The evidence shows zero evidence for big bang and abiogenesis.  There is even more mountains of evidence against macroevolution, evolutionary thinking and history.  More people believe in a creator than multiverses or aliens.  Besides, how can some natural or physical event start the beginning of space and time?
Click to expand...


Wrong.  There is no evidence for a creator, period.  Who cares what people believe?  We're talking about facts.  What people believe is often false.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know there is no other planet like Earth? Obviously you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smh.  We've been over this.  It's in Genesis and Noah's flood.  That's why there is no other planet like Earth.  Our probes have found it so.  Scientifically, we have the fine tuning facts to show that it does not happen.  Life is rare.  We can use probabilities to see if we'll find another planet like ours and chances of that are slim and none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such conclusions are rather premature. The scientific exploration of space is really a very young science. Radio telescopes and the Hubble are relatively new technologies within the last several decades.
> 
> Nothing about the universe shows fine tuning, unless you want to represent cometary bombardment of planets, meteor strikes (have you heard of that little dalliance on this planet that occured 65 million years age), cosmic radiation, galaxy collisions, etc., fine tuning.  The fact is, space is a hostile environment to life.
> 
> The discovery of life elsewhere in our solar system or elsewhere in our galaxy would be utterly devastating to the religious articles as “creation” is uniquely an earthly event. Send a probe to Mars, scan the universe with Hubble, explore space with radio telescopes and search for life off the planet Earth. This is what science is doing. What religionists are doing to establish their suppositions... well, forgive the irony, but, god only knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is science that is observable, testable and falsifiable because it is based on fine tuning facts and probabilities.  I am predicting what we will not find in the future based on probabilities and what fine tuning parameters have to be met.  Let's just say that you do not understand what the Earth is comprised of and probabilities.  As for the rest, you believe in bull puckey, so that isn't my problem.  We have not observed life anywhere else nor evidence of what you claim on Earth.  Earth is special.  It isn't mediocre.  If it was mediocre in terms of habitability, then I would not say it.  However, the secular, i.e. atheist scientists, say that because the creation scientists say the Earth is special.  They are in denial of God and his beautiful, wonderful and SPECIAL creation.
> 
> The following is from theistic evos.  At least, they understand science if not how God does things.  It talks about Carl Sagan who died with the knowledge of no aliens and that he was wrong.  I predict that most of the non-believers will die the same way.
> 
> The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of that is actually evidence. You have been lied to again by another paid liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's evidence found by Stephen Hawking and his people.  Are you calling them paid liars?  It's so _hot_ that they chose to deliberately ignore it and go with multiverses lie-pothesis in order make the odds better for the Earth not being special.  To the contrary, the Earth and Sun are special.  Earth is special because it hosts a wide variety of life and intelligent life.  What other planet has that?  None.  It also has the following characteristics which the secular scientists have not been able to find:
> 
> the existence of water at the Earth’s surface—neither too much nor too little—that is in liquid form
> proximity to the sun—neither too much heat nor too little
> system of plate tectonics that enables the carbon-silicate cycle regulating temperature
> the right size—large enough to hang on to its atmosphere, but not so large to hold on to too much atmosphere and consequently too much heat
> its protection by “big brother Jupiter,” whose gravity helps divert and vacuum up incoming debris and keep Earth safe
> the moon’s stabilizing effect on our planetary rotation, which prevents the poles from shifting unexpectedly
> The Earth's solar flares are just right.  If not, then the believers and non-believers would all be roasted "sitting ducks."
> 
> What Makes Earth So Unique?
> 
> Stellar Superflare Reminder: Our Sun Is Special
Click to expand...


Yes. The earth’s gravity was just enough to cause an object to strike the planet 65 million years ago obliterating most life. 

That’s some special fine tuning.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two moons in our solar system that are covered with water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you said isn't true.  Moreover, can you tell the difference between a planet and a moon?
> 
> I don't expect an answer because you're a .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is true. Europa and Enceladus are both completely covered by a layer of water than then a layer of ice.  Check it out on Wiki before you make a fool of yourself.
> 
> Enceladus - Wikipedia
> 
> Europa (moon) - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


Ice is a state of water.  We want the liquid state.  Single cells do not grow in ice when it is too cold as found by testing in Antarctica.  Try again haha.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know there is no other planet like Earth? Obviously you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smh.  We've been over this.  It's in Genesis and Noah's flood.  That's why there is no other planet like Earth.  Our probes have found it so.  Scientifically, we have the fine tuning facts to show that it does not happen.  Life is rare.  We can use probabilities to see if we'll find another planet like ours and chances of that are slim and none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such conclusions are rather premature. The scientific exploration of space is really a very young science. Radio telescopes and the Hubble are relatively new technologies within the last several decades.
> 
> Nothing about the universe shows fine tuning, unless you want to represent cometary bombardment of planets, meteor strikes (have you heard of that little dalliance on this planet that occured 65 million years age), cosmic radiation, galaxy collisions, etc., fine tuning.  The fact is, space is a hostile environment to life.
> 
> The discovery of life elsewhere in our solar system or elsewhere in our galaxy would be utterly devastating to the religious articles as “creation” is uniquely an earthly event. Send a probe to Mars, scan the universe with Hubble, explore space with radio telescopes and search for life off the planet Earth. This is what science is doing. What religionists are doing to establish their suppositions... well, forgive the irony, but, god only knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is science that is observable, testable and falsifiable because it is based on fine tuning facts and probabilities.  I am predicting what we will not find in the future based on probabilities and what fine tuning parameters have to be met.  Let's just say that you do not understand what the Earth is comprised of and probabilities.  As for the rest, you believe in bull puckey, so that isn't my problem.  We have not observed life anywhere else nor evidence of what you claim on Earth.  Earth is special.  It isn't mediocre.  If it was mediocre in terms of habitability, then I would not say it.  However, the secular, i.e. atheist scientists, say that because the creation scientists say the Earth is special.  They are in denial of God and his beautiful, wonderful and SPECIAL creation.
> 
> The following is from theistic evos.  At least, they understand science if not how God does things.  It talks about Carl Sagan who died with the knowledge of no aliens and that he was wrong.  I predict that most of the non-believers will die the same way.
> 
> The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of that is actually evidence. You have been lied to again by another paid liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's evidence found by Stephen Hawking and his people.  Are you calling them paid liars?  It's so _hot_ that they chose to deliberately ignore it and go with multiverses lie-pothesis in order make the odds better for the Earth not being special.  To the contrary, the Earth and Sun are special.  Earth is special because it hosts a wide variety of life and intelligent life.  What other planet has that?  None.  It also has the following characteristics which the secular scientists have not been able to find:
> 
> the existence of water at the Earth’s surface—neither too much nor too little—that is in liquid form
> proximity to the sun—neither too much heat nor too little
> system of plate tectonics that enables the carbon-silicate cycle regulating temperature
> the right size—large enough to hang on to its atmosphere, but not so large to hold on to too much atmosphere and consequently too much heat
> its protection by “big brother Jupiter,” whose gravity helps divert and vacuum up incoming debris and keep Earth safe
> the moon’s stabilizing effect on our planetary rotation, which prevents the poles from shifting unexpectedly
> The Earth's solar flares are just right.  If not, then the believers and non-believers would all be roasted "sitting ducks."
> 
> What Makes Earth So Unique?
> 
> Stellar Superflare Reminder: Our Sun Is Special
Click to expand...


Cutting and pasting from the charlatans at AIG is a sure way to lose credibility.

Otherwise, did you know the gods fine tuned the rotation of the planet and the tilt on its axis at just the precise speed and angle, along with their fine tuning of convection currents, to create what we know as twisters or tornadoes which kill people relentlessly?

Those gods, they’re such kidders.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> The consensus of what the evidence shows is zero evidence for a creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  You got it ass-backwards.  The evidence shows zero evidence for big bang and abiogenesis.  There is even more mountains of evidence against macroevolution, evolutionary thinking and history.  More people believe in a creator than multiverses or aliens.  Besides, how can some natural or physical event start the beginning of space and time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  There is no evidence for a creator, period.  Who cares what people believe?  We're talking about facts.  What people believe is often false.
Click to expand...


You don't know what you are talking about as big bang isn't facts.  You can't even explain quantum fluctuations, conservation of energy, quantum physics, entropy and don't know the difference between ice and water and more haha.  All  of which is above you brain level.  All your brain is good for is believing in the "lie-potheses" of evolution.  What atheist scientists believe is often false.  What creation scientists believe is often true.  It goes to show Satan exists and have corrupted your brain so up is down and lies are truth.


----------



## james bond

At least I understand why atheists and their scientists believe in lies.  They start with a no God universe.  That is impossible because we have gravity and it is never off and one cannot escape gravity.  Gravity is Jesus and stands before everyone.  There are no quantum particles associated for its force to work.  What is required is ether and mass and neither require quantum particles for it to exert gravity's force.  Yet, ether is massless.  Light is massless.  They are invisible, but we know gravity also massless to exert a great force.  The greatest force in the universe.


----------



## cnm

james bond said:


> Besides, how can some natural or physical event start the beginning of space and time?


I don't know. Neither do you. As I understand it, the BBT describes the evolution of the universe, its expansion and cooling, nothing else.


----------



## DOTR

fncceo said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> the bible was created and written by humans to coerce slaves to not rebel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ancient slaves were literate?
Click to expand...


And apparently religious.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> At least I understand why atheists and their scientists believe in lies.  They start with a no God universe.  That is impossible because we have gravity and it is never off and one cannot escape gravity.  Gravity is Jesus and stands before everyone.  There are no quantum particles associated for its force to work.  What is required is ether and mass and neither require quantum particles for it to exert gravity's force.  Yet, ether is massless.  Light is massless.  They are invisible, but we know gravity also massless to exert a great force.  The greatest force in the universe.



Gravity is Jesus?

I see. Is this some new-fangled religious cult you're a part of?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two moons in our solar system that are covered with water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you said isn't true.  Moreover, can you tell the difference between a planet and a moon?
> 
> I don't expect an answer because you're a .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is true. Europa and Enceladus are both completely covered by a layer of water than then a layer of ice.  Check it out on Wiki before you make a fool of yourself.
> 
> Enceladus - Wikipedia
> 
> Europa (moon) - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ice is a state of water.  We want the liquid state.  Single cells do not grow in ice when it is too cold as found by testing in Antarctica.  Try again haha.
Click to expand...

There's liquid water under the ice, moron.  That means there is a source of heat within the moon, and that means there are probably something like the thermal vents we have here on Earth.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> The consensus of what the evidence shows is zero evidence for a creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  You got it ass-backwards.  The evidence shows zero evidence for big bang and abiogenesis.  There is even more mountains of evidence against macroevolution, evolutionary thinking and history.  More people believe in a creator than multiverses or aliens.  Besides, how can some natural or physical event start the beginning of space and time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  There is no evidence for a creator, period.  Who cares what people believe?  We're talking about facts.  What people believe is often false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about as big bang isn't facts.  You can't even explain quantum fluctuations, conservation of energy, quantum physics, entropy and don't know the difference between ice and water and more haha.  All  of which is above you brain level.  All your brain is good for is believing in the "lie-potheses" of evolution.  What atheist scientists believe is often false.  What creation scientists believe is often true.  It goes to show Satan exists and have corrupted your brain so up is down and lies are truth.
Click to expand...


I haven't even mentioned the big bang.  I don't need explain quantum fluctuations, conservation of energy, quantum physics or entropy. Your theory that life can't exist on an ice moon is obvious horseshit, as I explained elsewhere.  Your belief that you understand science better than I do doesn't pass the laugh test.  Every time you post you demonstrate that you don't know what science is.  You think the Old Testament is science.

Shouldn't what "creation scientists" (an oxymoron) believe always be true?


----------



## james bond

cnm said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, how can some natural or physical event start the beginning of space and time?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. Neither do you. As I understand it, the BBT describes the evolution of the universe, its expansion and cooling, nothing else.
Click to expand...


Of course, I know and the creation science believers know.  Everything was created by God in six days.  Only a timeless, spaceless, all-powerful being living in another dimension can create all this.  However, it was tainted by the sin of disobedience which brought forth death in this physical life.  Today, we still have this disobedience in the religious form of atheism, agnosticism and secular science.  Today's secular or atheist science does not believe in God, so it created the religion of evolution and evolutionary and historical lies to make the general populace disobey God.  It's no secret why believers and non-believers disagree on everything and non-believers have been tricked and lied to by Satan himself.  Otherwise, science would show it to be true and we could observe, test and falsify it.  However, none of it can and yet the general populace believes.  That's the biggest lie in the world and the immoral and weak-brained believe it and will go to their graves with it.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two moons in our solar system that are covered with water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you said isn't true.  Moreover, can you tell the difference between a planet and a moon?
> 
> I don't expect an answer because you're a .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is true. Europa and Enceladus are both completely covered by a layer of water than then a layer of ice.  Check it out on Wiki before you make a fool of yourself.
> 
> Enceladus - Wikipedia
> 
> Europa (moon) - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ice is a state of water.  We want the liquid state.  Single cells do not grow in ice when it is too cold as found by testing in Antarctica.  Try again haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's liquid water under the ice, moron.  That means there is a source of heat within the moon, and that means there are probably something like the thermal vents we have here on Earth.
Click to expand...


bripat9643, it didn't take long to get to ad hominem attacks.  It shows how weak-brained you are.  The believers have exposed you for what you are.  A moron and a debate loser.  That means we are the winners because you have no evidence of your claims about ice while I presented the findings that single-cells cannot live in Antarctica.  It's observable, testable, falsifiable and repeatable.  You can go to the corner and bawl your stupid eyes out.



bripat9643 said:


> I haven't even mentioned the big bang. I don't need explain quantum fluctuations, conservation of energy, quantum physics or entropy. Your theory that life can't exist on an ice moon is obvious horseshit, as I explained elsewhere. Your belief that you understand science better than I do doesn't pass the laugh test. Every time you post you demonstrate that you don't know what science is. You think the Old Testament is science.
> 
> Shouldn't what "creation scientists" (an oxymoron) believe always be true?



You can't mention what you do not know nor can explain what I asked for.  It was I who said "atheist scientists" is an oxymoron first .


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, how can some natural or physical event start the beginning of space and time?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. Neither do you. As I understand it, the BBT describes the evolution of the universe, its expansion and cooling, nothing else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, I know and the creation science believers know.  Everything was created by God in six days.  Only a timeless, spaceless, all-powerful being living in another dimension can create all this.  However, it was tainted by the sin of disobedience which brought forth death in this physical life.  Today, we still have this disobedience in the religious form of atheism, agnosticism and secular science.  Today's secular or atheist science does not believe in God, so it created the religion of evolution and evolutionary and historical lies to make the general populace disobey God.  It's no secret why believers and non-believers disagree on everything and non-believers have been tricked and lied to by Satan himself.  Otherwise, science would show it to be true and we could observe, test and falsify it.  However, none of it can and yet the general populace believes.  That's the biggest lie in the world and the immoral and weak-brained believe it and will go to their graves with it.
Click to expand...


The term "creation science believer" is an oxymoron.  Your belief is based on faith, which even you admit.  It's not based on evidence.  Science is the opposite of faith.  The outlook of the scientist is skepticism about virtually every proposition about the physical world that has been put forth.  Scientist don't refer to a 2500 year old book of fairy-tales to determine which theories are credible and which aren't.

One thing you can't seem to get through your head is that the failure of science to explain something doesn't mean you get to assume God did it.  You have to show credible evidence that this mythical being did it, and no believer has ever done that.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two moons in our solar system that are covered with water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you said isn't true.  Moreover, can you tell the difference between a planet and a moon?
> 
> I don't expect an answer because you're a .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is true. Europa and Enceladus are both completely covered by a layer of water than then a layer of ice.  Check it out on Wiki before you make a fool of yourself.
> 
> Enceladus - Wikipedia
> 
> Europa (moon) - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ice is a state of water.  We want the liquid state.  Single cells do not grow in ice when it is too cold as found by testing in Antarctica.  Try again haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's liquid water under the ice, moron.  That means there is a source of heat within the moon, and that means there are probably something like the thermal vents we have here on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bripat9643, it didn't take long to get to ad hominem attacks.  It shows how weak-brained you are.  The believers have exposed you for what you are.  A moron and a debate loser.  That means we are the winners because you have no evidence of your claims about ice while I presented the findings that single-cells cannot live in Antarctica.  It's observable, testable, falsifiable and repeatable.  You can go to the corner and bawl your stupid eyes out.
Click to expand...


That's all hogwash.  My ad hominem is an indication of nothing more than that I have little tolerance for addressing stupidities that I have already addressed 100 times.  However, I will strive to avoid doing so in the future.

There is plenty of evidence for what I claimed.  For instance, consider this photo of Enceladus spewing water into space:










That evidence is pretty much irrefutable.



james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't even mentioned the big bang. I don't need explain quantum fluctuations, conservation of energy, quantum physics or entropy. Your theory that life can't exist on an ice moon is obvious horseshit, as I explained elsewhere. Your belief that you understand science better than I do doesn't pass the laugh test. Every time you post you demonstrate that you don't know what science is. You think the Old Testament is science.
> 
> Shouldn't what "creation scientists" (an oxymoron) believe always be true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't mention what you do not know nor can explain what I asked for.  It was I who said "atheist scientists" is an oxymoron first .
Click to expand...


That's beside the point.  If the Bible is the infallible word of God, then how can so-called "creation scientists" ever be wrong?


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> That evidence is pretty much irrefutable.



Except the surface is ice and not water.  It doesn't match what the Earth has.  Difference between living in Antarctica and Hawaii.



bripat9643 said:


> That's beside the point. If the Bible is the infallible word of God, then how can so-called "creation scientists" ever be wrong?



Now, you're getting it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Difference between living in Antarctica and Hawaii.


Dang that's stupid. For one, we actually find life in the ice in Antarctica. Second, there is not an ocean under Antarctic ice. There is land. And...oops!...we find life there, too.

You just really are not capable of having an honest conversation about these topics.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That evidence is pretty much irrefutable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the surface is ice and not water.  It doesn't match what the Earth has.  Difference between living in Antarctica and Hawaii.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's beside the point. If the Bible is the infallible word of God, then how can so-called "creation scientists" ever be wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, you're getting it.
Click to expand...

Now you're moving the goal posts.  You said liquid water didn't exist anywhere else in the universe, let alone our solar system.  That claim was clearly wrong.  No one claimed these moons were identical to Earth.  However, there existence indicates that there is a high probability that some planets circling other starts will have water.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That evidence is pretty much irrefutable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the surface is ice and not water.  It doesn't match what the Earth has.  Difference between living in Antarctica and Hawaii.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's beside the point. If the Bible is the infallible word of God, then how can so-called "creation scientists" ever be wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, you're getting it.
Click to expand...


No one is getting it. So-called creation science, ID’iot creationism, whatever the current label, is a laughable joke.


Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Difference between living in Antarctica and Hawaii.
> 
> 
> 
> Dang that's stupid. For one, we actually find life in the ice in Antarctica. Second, there is not an ocean under Antarctic ice. There is land. And...oops!...we find life there, too.
> 
> You just really are not capable of having an honest conversation about these topics.
Click to expand...


All I said is there are parts of ice in Antarctica where there is no life.  Never mentioned any water underneath it.  It's bripat9643 who thinks there is water under the ice on some moon and thinks the ice above it is an ocean.  What an idiot.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That evidence is pretty much irrefutable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the surface is ice and not water.  It doesn't match what the Earth has.  Difference between living in Antarctica and Hawaii.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's beside the point. If the Bible is the infallible word of God, then how can so-called "creation scientists" ever be wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, you're getting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're moving the goal posts.  You said liquid water didn't exist anywhere else in the universe, let alone our solar system.  That claim was clearly wrong.  No one claimed these moons were identical to Earth.  However, there existence indicates that there is a high probability that some planets circling other starts will have water.
Click to expand...


I was right and you still haven't found a planet like Earth.  Just admit there's no place like Earth or be considered a fool.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you said isn't true.  Moreover, can you tell the difference between a planet and a moon?
> 
> I don't expect an answer because you're a .
> 
> 
> 
> It is true. Europa and Enceladus are both completely covered by a layer of water than then a layer of ice.  Check it out on Wiki before you make a fool of yourself.
> 
> Enceladus - Wikipedia
> 
> Europa (moon) - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ice is a state of water.  We want the liquid state.  Single cells do not grow in ice when it is too cold as found by testing in Antarctica.  Try again haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's liquid water under the ice, moron.  That means there is a source of heat within the moon, and that means there are probably something like the thermal vents we have here on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bripat9643, it didn't take long to get to ad hominem attacks.  It shows how weak-brained you are.  The believers have exposed you for what you are.  A moron and a debate loser.  That means we are the winners because you have no evidence of your claims about ice while I presented the findings that single-cells cannot live in Antarctica.  It's observable, testable, falsifiable and repeatable.  You can go to the corner and bawl your stupid eyes out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all hogwash.  My ad hominem is an indication of nothing more than that I have little tolerance for addressing stupidities that I have already addressed 100 times.  However, I will strive to avoid doing so in the future.
> 
> There is plenty of evidence for what I claimed.  For instance, consider this photo of Enceladus spewing water into space:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That evidence is pretty much irrefutable.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't even mentioned the big bang. I don't need explain quantum fluctuations, conservation of energy, quantum physics or entropy. Your theory that life can't exist on an ice moon is obvious horseshit, as I explained elsewhere. Your belief that you understand science better than I do doesn't pass the laugh test. Every time you post you demonstrate that you don't know what science is. You think the Old Testament is science.
> 
> Shouldn't what "creation scientists" (an oxymoron) believe always be true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't mention what you do not know nor can explain what I asked for.  It was I who said "atheist scientists" is an oxymoron first .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's beside the point.  If the Bible is the infallible word of God, then how can so-called "creation scientists" ever be wrong?
Click to expand...


Well, you can go live in Enceladus and take some cameras with you.  I'll stay right here on Earth with other believers and we'll watch you freeze to death.


----------



## buttercup

The Irish Ram said:


> More of Einstein's own words:
> 
> *“Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.”*
> _
> *“The divine reveals itself in the physical world.”*
> _
> *“This firm belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.”*
> 
> As far as science and religion going hand in hand Einstein said this:
> _
> * “A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”*
> _
> And* this* is what he says about people like you:
> _
> *"There is harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, yet there are people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me to support such views."*
> _
> People like you pissed Einstein off...



I like his quote on Jesus.

*"I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."* Einstein was then asked if he accepted the historical existence of Jesus, to which he replied, *"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

*


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific fact is observable and repeatable. Theory is not fact and that is your weakest link.
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is what I am talking about. You don't even realize how dumb and wrong this is.
> 
> Scientific theories yield repeatable results. And yes, theories can become accepted as "fact".
> 
> Your comment regarding observations is ridiculous as well. Go ahead, measure the time for a rock to fall to earth. You will get 10 different answers. Every time. Which is "the fact"? The thing tying these measurements together is the scientific theory; therein lies your "fact". it is the theory that tells you rocks fall down every time, and why. It explains the range of measurements you will get, and why you get them. It explains why the rock always falls down and always does so at about the same speed.
> 
> Here is something "repeatable" for you:
> 
> The fossil record shows the same animals in the same layers. They generally do not appear before or after their own layer. And this is so everywhere we look. And everywhere we look, the layers are in the same order. Everywhere we look, we see the families of animals in the same chronological order, and can trace the changes in their physiology. We see the simpler, generalized vertebrates first, then the different families of vertebrates after. We see gills, then lungs. We see the dentition of two, distinct modern species or genera traced right back to their common origin (e.g., cats and dogs).
> 
> So, riddle me this, shaman...what is the "fact" in all of  that repeatable, reliable observation?
> 
> (Hint: it has been a well known scientific theory for 150 years)
Click to expand...

Because of the FLOOD, animals with gills would be affected in mass first, and then those with lungs would be next. And then there is hydrological sorting:  Hydrological sorting - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That evidence is pretty much irrefutable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the surface is ice and not water.  It doesn't match what the Earth has.  Difference between living in Antarctica and Hawaii.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's beside the point. If the Bible is the infallible word of God, then how can so-called "creation scientists" ever be wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, you're getting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're moving the goal posts.  You said liquid water didn't exist anywhere else in the universe, let alone our solar system.  That claim was clearly wrong.  No one claimed these moons were identical to Earth.  However, there existence indicates that there is a high probability that some planets circling other starts will have water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was right and you still haven't found a planet like Earth.  Just admit there's no place like Earth or be considered a fool.
Click to expand...

You haven't been right about anything you have posted in this forum.

There's no way you can know whether there are other planets like Earth, but considering the fact that there are hundreds of billions of planets, the odds are quite good that there are.


----------



## bripat9643

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific fact is observable and repeatable. Theory is not fact and that is your weakest link.
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is what I am talking about. You don't even realize how dumb and wrong this is.
> 
> Scientific theories yield repeatable results. And yes, theories can become accepted as "fact".
> 
> Your comment regarding observations is ridiculous as well. Go ahead, measure the time for a rock to fall to earth. You will get 10 different answers. Every time. Which is "the fact"? The thing tying these measurements together is the scientific theory; therein lies your "fact". it is the theory that tells you rocks fall down every time, and why. It explains the range of measurements you will get, and why you get them. It explains why the rock always falls down and always does so at about the same speed.
> 
> Here is something "repeatable" for you:
> 
> The fossil record shows the same animals in the same layers. They generally do not appear before or after their own layer. And this is so everywhere we look. And everywhere we look, the layers are in the same order. Everywhere we look, we see the families of animals in the same chronological order, and can trace the changes in their physiology. We see the simpler, generalized vertebrates first, then the different families of vertebrates after. We see gills, then lungs. We see the dentition of two, distinct modern species or genera traced right back to their common origin (e.g., cats and dogs).
> 
> So, riddle me this, shaman...what is the "fact" in all of  that repeatable, reliable observation?
> 
> (Hint: it has been a well known scientific theory for 150 years)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because of the FLOOD, animals with gills would be affected in mass first, and then those with lungs would be next. And then there is hydrological sorting:  Hydrological sorting - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Click to expand...

The layers aren't sorted by whether the animals have gills or lungs.   There are very deep layers where the fossilized animals have gills, and quite recent layers where the fossilized animals have gills.  Hydrological sorting isn't what occurred.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true. Europa and Enceladus are both completely covered by a layer of water than then a layer of ice.  Check it out on Wiki before you make a fool of yourself.
> 
> Enceladus - Wikipedia
> 
> Europa (moon) - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ice is a state of water.  We want the liquid state.  Single cells do not grow in ice when it is too cold as found by testing in Antarctica.  Try again haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's liquid water under the ice, moron.  That means there is a source of heat within the moon, and that means there are probably something like the thermal vents we have here on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bripat9643, it didn't take long to get to ad hominem attacks.  It shows how weak-brained you are.  The believers have exposed you for what you are.  A moron and a debate loser.  That means we are the winners because you have no evidence of your claims about ice while I presented the findings that single-cells cannot live in Antarctica.  It's observable, testable, falsifiable and repeatable.  You can go to the corner and bawl your stupid eyes out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all hogwash.  My ad hominem is an indication of nothing more than that I have little tolerance for addressing stupidities that I have already addressed 100 times.  However, I will strive to avoid doing so in the future.
> 
> There is plenty of evidence for what I claimed.  For instance, consider this photo of Enceladus spewing water into space:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That evidence is pretty much irrefutable.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't even mentioned the big bang. I don't need explain quantum fluctuations, conservation of energy, quantum physics or entropy. Your theory that life can't exist on an ice moon is obvious horseshit, as I explained elsewhere. Your belief that you understand science better than I do doesn't pass the laugh test. Every time you post you demonstrate that you don't know what science is. You think the Old Testament is science.
> 
> Shouldn't what "creation scientists" (an oxymoron) believe always be true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't mention what you do not know nor can explain what I asked for.  It was I who said "atheist scientists" is an oxymoron first .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's beside the point.  If the Bible is the infallible word of God, then how can so-called "creation scientists" ever be wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you can go live in Enceladus and take some cameras with you.  I'll stay right here on Earth with other believers and we'll watch you freeze to death.
Click to expand...

You proved exactly nothing with that post.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Difference between living in Antarctica and Hawaii.
> 
> 
> 
> Dang that's stupid. For one, we actually find life in the ice in Antarctica. Second, there is not an ocean under Antarctic ice. There is land. And...oops!...we find life there, too.
> 
> You just really are not capable of having an honest conversation about these topics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I said is there are parts of ice in Antarctica where there is no life.  Never mentioned any water underneath it.  It's bripat9643 who thinks there is water under the ice on some moon and thinks the ice above it is an ocean.  What an idiot.
Click to expand...

Quit lying about what you said and about what I said.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Because of the FLOOD, animals with gills would be affected in mass first, and then those with lungs would be next.


Hahaha...how does that make any sense at all? A flood wouldn't kill a single gilled animal. Dude, seriously,don't drink and post.

Furthermore, the layers represent millions of years. so, in addition to explaining how a flood killed water breathing creatures, you have to also explain how it killed creatures that didn't even exist at the time of the flood.

Don't try, because you can't.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because of the FLOOD, animals with gills would be affected in mass first, and then those with lungs would be next.
> 
> 
> 
> Hahaha...how does that make any sense at all? A flood wouldn't kill a single gilled animal. Dude, seriously,don't drink and post.
> 
> Furthermore, the layers represent millions of years. so, in addition to explaining how a flood killed water breathing creatures, you have to also explain how it killed creatures that didn't even exist at the time of the flood.
> 
> Don't try, because you can't.
Click to expand...

The animals you say were not alive at the time of the Flood obviously were, and as for how aquatic life is killed by both storms and floods is clearly observable and can be studied.  Hurricanes: Science and Society: Aquatic Impacts


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> The animals you say were not alive at the time of the Flood obviously were,


They obviously were not. What an absurd, delusional thing to say. What of fossils that are 200 million years old, and do not appear in the fossil record after 150 million years ago? 



LittleNipper said:


> and as for how aquatic life is killed by both storms and floods is clearly observable and can be studied.


None of those studies show even a significant persentage of all marine life drying off in any of those examples, you shameless little liar. You copy paste that talking point and never bothered even to try to understand it.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The animals you say were not alive at the time of the Flood obviously were,
> 
> 
> 
> They obviously were not. What an absurd, delusional thing to say. What of fossils that are 200 million years old, and do not appear in the fossil record after 150 million years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> and as for how aquatic life is killed by both storms and floods is clearly observable and can be studied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of those studies show even a significant persentage of all marine life drying off in any of those examples, you shameless little liar. You copy paste that talking point and never bothered even to try to understand it.
Click to expand...

You want absurd and delusional -- read this drivel: Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained  ... as for your remarks regarding marine animals dying as the result of floods and storms, it was you who stated that "*NO* (none/nada) GILL LIFE WOULD BE KILLED BY A FLOOD - DUDE." Clearly this was a misstatement on your part. And the scope of Noah's FLOOD was well beyond anything we experience today. It would have been a worldwide catastrophe. I'm sure all the runoff from any landmasses would have turned various areas of the water to dense clouds of silt.

I support God's word and you support man's "scientific imaginings". Sorry, terms like "maybe this" or "maybe that" or "unlikely whatever," don't sound anymore scientific when used by evolutionists.


----------



## abu afak

LittleNipper said:


> ...
> 
> *I support God's word and you support man's "scientific imaginings".* Sorry, terms like "maybe this" or "maybe that" or "unlikely whatever," don't sound anymore scientific when used by evolutionists.


Science isn't "imaginings," it's provided us Everything we know, and our living standard to today.
Following a 3rd Century childish Morality Play, has provided Nothing.
Same as other (and contradictory) 'Holy books.' Nada.
`


----------



## LittleNipper

abu afak said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> *I support God's word and you support man's "scientific imaginings".* Sorry, terms like "maybe this" or "maybe that" or "unlikely whatever," don't sound anymore scientific when used by evolutionists.
> 
> 
> 
> Science isn't "imaginings," it's provided us Everything we know, and our living standard to today.
> Following a 3rd Century childish Morality Play, has provided Nothing.
> Same as other (and contradictory) 'Holy books.' Nada.
> `
Click to expand...

Science doesn't rationalize words like "perhaps, maybe, possibly, likely, our best guess". And frankly people shouldn't limit such words to evolutionists...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The animals you say were not alive at the time of the Flood obviously were,
> 
> 
> 
> They obviously were not. What an absurd, delusional thing to say. What of fossils that are 200 million years old, and do not appear in the fossil record after 150 million years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> and as for how aquatic life is killed by both storms and floods is clearly observable and can be studied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of those studies show even a significant persentage of all marine life drying off in any of those examples, you shameless little liar. You copy paste that talking point and never bothered even to try to understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want absurd and delusional -- read this drivel: Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained  ... as for your remarks regarding marine animals dying as the result of floods and storms, it was you who stated that "*NO* (none/nada) GILL LIFE WOULD BE KILLED BY A FLOOD - DUDE." Clearly this was a misstatement on your part. And the scope of Noah's FLOOD was well beyond anything we experience today. It would have been a worldwide catastrophe. I'm sure all the runoff from any landmasses would have turned various areas of the water to dense clouds of silt.
> 
> I support God's word and you support man's "scientific imaginings". Sorry, terms like "maybe this" or "maybe that" or "unlikely whatever," don't sound anymore scientific when used by evolutionists.
Click to expand...

You didn't read a word of that article and could not argue it's points if your life depended on it. And you certainly have no grasp of that topic and did not lift a finger to find scientific sources to explain it to you. So go dump your exercises in someone else's lap, then change the subject when they are polite enough to spoonfeed it to you. I am not that guy .


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The animals you say were not alive at the time of the Flood obviously were,
> 
> 
> 
> They obviously were not. What an absurd, delusional thing to say. What of fossils that are 200 million years old, and do not appear in the fossil record after 150 million years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> and as for how aquatic life is killed by both storms and floods is clearly observable and can be studied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of those studies show even a significant persentage of all marine life drying off in any of those examples, you shameless little liar. You copy paste that talking point and never bothered even to try to understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want absurd and delusional -- read this drivel: Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained  ... as for your remarks regarding marine animals dying as the result of floods and storms, it was you who stated that "*NO* (none/nada) GILL LIFE WOULD BE KILLED BY A FLOOD - DUDE." Clearly this was a misstatement on your part. And the scope of Noah's FLOOD was well beyond anything we experience today. It would have been a worldwide catastrophe. I'm sure all the runoff from any landmasses would have turned various areas of the water to dense clouds of silt.
> 
> I support God's word and you support man's "scientific imaginings". Sorry, terms like "maybe this" or "maybe that" or "unlikely whatever," don't sound anymore scientific when used by evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't read a word of that article and could not argue it's points if your life depended on it. And you certainly have no grasp of that topic and did not lift a finger to find scientific sources to explain it to you. So go dump your exercises in someone else's lap, then change the subject when they are polite enough to spoonfeed it to you. I am not that guy .
Click to expand...

You are a very narrow minded lost soul. And you see nothing because you wear blinders and shut your eyes to obvious issues. The fact that anyone could believe that soft tissue could last 10's of thousands of years is more of a dreamer than any Christian could be ---- much less 100's of millions of years. The only way something might exist that long would be in the confines of outer-space. And total airlessness and a deep freeze are not what would exist anywhere on this globe over the course of 100's of millions of years. How's that for spoon feeding you!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> You are a very narrow minded lost soul.


Excuse you....I am open to any and all new, empirical information amd would change my stance on anything and everything, should i be presented with enough empirical knowledge which contradicts it.

You, on the other hand, have made up your mind with 100%certainty without any regard to any evidence, nor would you ever change your mind , when presented with evidence. We see a fine example of this in your embarrassing, childish intransigence in regards to the theory of evolution.

I am infinitely more open minded than you will ever be, and i resent your nauseating, dishonest attempts to soothe yourself with your false, overwrought characterizations of me.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a very narrow minded lost soul.
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse you....I am open to any and all new, empirical information amd would change my stance on anything and everything, should i be presented with enough empirical knowledge which contradicts it.
> 
> You, on the other hand, have made up your mind with 100%certainty without any regard to any evidence, nor would you ever change your mind , when presented with evidence. We see a fine example of this in your embarrassing, childish intransigence in regards to the theory of evolution.
> 
> I am infinitely more open minded than you will ever be, and i resent your nauseating, dishonest attempts to soothe yourself with your false, overwrought characterizations of me.
Click to expand...

Undeniable proof that GOD is real: Desmond Doss: The Real Story


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a very narrow minded lost soul.
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse you....I am open to any and all new, empirical information amd would change my stance on anything and everything, should i be presented with enough empirical knowledge which contradicts it.
> 
> You, on the other hand, have made up your mind with 100%certainty without any regard to any evidence, nor would you ever change your mind , when presented with evidence. We see a fine example of this in your embarrassing, childish intransigence in regards to the theory of evolution.
> 
> I am infinitely more open minded than you will ever be, and i resent your nauseating, dishonest attempts to soothe yourself with your false, overwrought characterizations of me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Undeniable proof that GOD is real: Desmond Doss: The Real Story
Click to expand...


We can all thank the gods for Guam, Leyte, and Okinawa.

Can I get a *hallelujah* brothas' and sistas'


----------



## LittleNipper

You can thank Satan for war, but you can thank GOD for His salvation: Trailer #1 from Hacksaw Ridge (2016)


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> You can thank Satan for war, but you can thank GOD for His salvation: Trailer #1 from Hacksaw Ridge (2016)



So Satan is more powerful than your gods?

Why not get some new, improved gods?


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can thank Satan for war, but you can thank GOD for His salvation: Trailer #1 from Hacksaw Ridge (2016)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Satan is more powerful than your gods?
> 
> Why not get some new, improved gods?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I'm not about to re-explain the Bible to someone as smart and as educated as you present yourself. The truth is that due to Adam's presumption that what GOD told him was not true, Satan was able to gain a foothold and the entire Universe has come under the curse of SIN. GOD could deal with this in one of 2 ways. ONE, destroy every thing and begin again. This would condemned Adam for all eternity. Or TWO, allow Satan to have his day and provide a means of salvation for everyone who would place their trust in GOD for this salvation. 

And so GOD took it upon HIMSELF to save (whosoever will come to believe in HIM) through the MESSIAH/CHRIST. So the reality is that presently Satan is manipulating events but not without still being under GOD's divine limiting perimeters (read the book of JOB).

I'm thankful that GOD gave me an opportunity to exist and come to trust in HIM. Unfortunately, this means that there will be those who presumptuously believe that GOD isn't in charge.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can thank Satan for war, but you can thank GOD for His salvation: Trailer #1 from Hacksaw Ridge (2016)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Satan is more powerful than your gods?
> 
> Why not get some new, improved gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but I'm not about to re-explain the Bible to someone as smart and as educated as you present yourself. The truth is that due to Adam's presumption that what GOD told him was not true, Satan was able to gain a foothold and the entire Universe has come under the curse of SIN. GOD could deal with this in one of 2 ways. ONE, destroy every thing and begin again. This would condemned Adam for all eternity. Or TWO, allow Satan to have his day and provide a means of salvation for everyone who would place their trust in GOD for this salvation.
> 
> And so GOD took it upon HIMSELF to save (whosoever will come to believe in HIM) through the MESSIAH/CHRIST. So the reality is that presently Satan is manipulating events but not without still being under GOD's divine limiting perimeters (read the book of JOB).
> 
> I'm thankful that GOD gave me an opportunity to exist and come to trust in HIM. Unfortunately, this means that there will be those who presumptuously believe that GOD isn't in charge.
Click to expand...


Thats a rather careless attempt to re-write the bibles. 

From the source document:

Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.


There's no denying the source documents. The gods lied.. Satan told the truth.

It's odd that you would attempt to re-write the bibles when the bibles already describe the fable. I've seen that often before. Religionists will cite verses from the bibles, never having actually read the bibles, only to ignore what was written in favor of what they would prefer to believe.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a very narrow minded lost soul.
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse you....I am open to any and all new, empirical information amd would change my stance on anything and everything, should i be presented with enough empirical knowledge which contradicts it.
> 
> You, on the other hand, have made up your mind with 100%certainty without any regard to any evidence, nor would you ever change your mind , when presented with evidence. We see a fine example of this in your embarrassing, childish intransigence in regards to the theory of evolution.
> 
> I am infinitely more open minded than you will ever be, and i resent your nauseating, dishonest attempts to soothe yourself with your false, overwrought characterizations of me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Undeniable proof that GOD is real: Desmond Doss: The Real Story
Click to expand...

I am not going to read article you never read and don't understand, and then spoonfeed its contents to you.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can thank Satan for war, but you can thank GOD for His salvation: Trailer #1 from Hacksaw Ridge (2016)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Satan is more powerful than your gods?
> 
> Why not get some new, improved gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but I'm not about to re-explain the Bible to someone as smart and as educated as you present yourself. The truth is that due to Adam's presumption that what GOD told him was not true, Satan was able to gain a foothold and the entire Universe has come under the curse of SIN. GOD could deal with this in one of 2 ways. ONE, destroy every thing and begin again. This would condemned Adam for all eternity. Or TWO, allow Satan to have his day and provide a means of salvation for everyone who would place their trust in GOD for this salvation.
> 
> And so GOD took it upon HIMSELF to save (whosoever will come to believe in HIM) through the MESSIAH/CHRIST. So the reality is that presently Satan is manipulating events but not without still being under GOD's divine limiting perimeters (read the book of JOB).
> 
> I'm thankful that GOD gave me an opportunity to exist and come to trust in HIM. Unfortunately, this means that there will be those who presumptuously believe that GOD isn't in charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats a rather careless attempt to re-write the bibles.
> 
> From the source document:
> 
> Genesis 3
> 1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
> 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
> 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
> 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
> 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
> 
> 
> There's no denying the source documents. The gods lied.. Satan told the truth.
> 
> It's odd that you would attempt to re-write the bibles when the bibles already describe the fable. I've seen that often before. Religionists will cite verses from the bibles, never having actually read the bibles, only to ignore what was written in favor of what they would prefer to believe.
Click to expand...

So Adam and Eve didn't die "spiritually" (they hid themselves and pointed fingers at each other and even blamed GOD for their choices)?. Did they not grow old and eventually face physical death?

You know what is a good and evil and live your life accordingly? You never lied, cheated, stole, wished someone dead? You see that "gay" marriage is fruitless? You wouldn't think of promoting abortion? You always make decisions based entirely on what is righteous and would never try to hide anything or build yourself esteem? Need I say more?

Satan didn't tell the truth ---- he wanted Adam to think just like him (YOU CAN BE GOD). And people have been living that lie ever since ---- including you it would seem! You can thank Satan for war, but you can thank GOD for His salvation: Trailer #1 from Hacksaw Ridge (2016)


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can thank Satan for war, but you can thank GOD for His salvation: Trailer #1 from Hacksaw Ridge (2016)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Satan is more powerful than your gods?
> 
> Why not get some new, improved gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but I'm not about to re-explain the Bible to someone as smart and as educated as you present yourself. The truth is that due to Adam's presumption that what GOD told him was not true, Satan was able to gain a foothold and the entire Universe has come under the curse of SIN. GOD could deal with this in one of 2 ways. ONE, destroy every thing and begin again. This would condemned Adam for all eternity. Or TWO, allow Satan to have his day and provide a means of salvation for everyone who would place their trust in GOD for this salvation.
> 
> And so GOD took it upon HIMSELF to save (whosoever will come to believe in HIM) through the MESSIAH/CHRIST. So the reality is that presently Satan is manipulating events but not without still being under GOD's divine limiting perimeters (read the book of JOB).
> 
> I'm thankful that GOD gave me an opportunity to exist and come to trust in HIM. Unfortunately, this means that there will be those who presumptuously believe that GOD isn't in charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats a rather careless attempt to re-write the bibles.
> 
> From the source document:
> 
> Genesis 3
> 1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
> 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
> 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
> 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
> 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
> 
> 
> There's no denying the source documents. The gods lied.. Satan told the truth.
> 
> It's odd that you would attempt to re-write the bibles when the bibles already describe the fable. I've seen that often before. Religionists will cite verses from the bibles, never having actually read the bibles, only to ignore what was written in favor of what they would prefer to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Adam and Eve didn't die "spiritually" (they hid themselves and pointed fingers at each other and even blamed GOD for their choices)?. Did they not grow old and eventually face physical death?
> 
> You know what is a good and evil and live your life accordingly? You never lied, cheated, stole, wished someone dead? You see that "gay" marriage is fruitless? You wouldn't think of promoting abortion? You always make decisions based entirely on what is righteous and would never try to hide anything or build yourself esteem? Need I say more?
> 
> Satan didn't tell the truth ---- he wanted Adam to think just like him (YOU CAN BE GOD). And people have been living that lie ever since ---- including you it would seem! You can thank Satan for war, but you can thank GOD for His salvation: Trailer #1 from Hacksaw Ridge (2016)
Click to expand...


Why bother re-writing the bibles when you simply ignore what is written?


4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:


Per the fable, A&E didn't die. The gods lied. Satan told the truth.

How ironic.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can thank Satan for war, but you can thank GOD for His salvation: Trailer #1 from Hacksaw Ridge (2016)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Satan is more powerful than your gods?
> 
> Why not get some new, improved gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but I'm not about to re-explain the Bible to someone as smart and as educated as you present yourself. The truth is that due to Adam's presumption that what GOD told him was not true, Satan was able to gain a foothold and the entire Universe has come under the curse of SIN. GOD could deal with this in one of 2 ways. ONE, destroy every thing and begin again. This would condemned Adam for all eternity. Or TWO, allow Satan to have his day and provide a means of salvation for everyone who would place their trust in GOD for this salvation.
> 
> And so GOD took it upon HIMSELF to save (whosoever will come to believe in HIM) through the MESSIAH/CHRIST. So the reality is that presently Satan is manipulating events but not without still being under GOD's divine limiting perimeters (read the book of JOB).
> 
> I'm thankful that GOD gave me an opportunity to exist and come to trust in HIM. Unfortunately, this means that there will be those who presumptuously believe that GOD isn't in charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats a rather careless attempt to re-write the bibles.
> 
> From the source document:
> 
> Genesis 3
> 1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
> 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
> 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
> 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
> 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
> 
> 
> There's no denying the source documents. The gods lied.. Satan told the truth.
> 
> It's odd that you would attempt to re-write the bibles when the bibles already describe the fable. I've seen that often before. Religionists will cite verses from the bibles, never having actually read the bibles, only to ignore what was written in favor of what they would prefer to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Adam and Eve didn't die "spiritually" (they hid themselves and pointed fingers at each other and even blamed GOD for their choices)?. Did they not grow old and eventually face physical death?
> 
> You know what is a good and evil and live your life accordingly? You never lied, cheated, stole, wished someone dead? You see that "gay" marriage is fruitless? You wouldn't think of promoting abortion? You always make decisions based entirely on what is righteous and would never try to hide anything or build yourself esteem? Need I say more?
> 
> Satan didn't tell the truth ---- he wanted Adam to think just like him (YOU CAN BE GOD). And people have been living that lie ever since ---- including you it would seem! You can thank Satan for war, but you can thank GOD for His salvation: Trailer #1 from Hacksaw Ridge (2016)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why bother re-writing the bibles when you simply ignore what is written?
> 
> 
> 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
> 
> 
> Per the fable, A&E didn't die. The gods lied. Satan told the truth.
> 
> How ironic.
Click to expand...

Are Adam and Eve still living? Adam* immediately l*ost his spiritual connection with GOD. Unless GOD did something, Adam would be destined for hell. That is want spiritual death is all about --- separation from GOD. And are you in that boat at present? Do you experience a relationship with GOD or are you your own person? Think about it!

I don't rewrite the Bible --- I embrace the one we have and ask GOD to help me understand HIS message.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Satan is more powerful than your gods?
> 
> Why not get some new, improved gods?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I'm not about to re-explain the Bible to someone as smart and as educated as you present yourself. The truth is that due to Adam's presumption that what GOD told him was not true, Satan was able to gain a foothold and the entire Universe has come under the curse of SIN. GOD could deal with this in one of 2 ways. ONE, destroy every thing and begin again. This would condemned Adam for all eternity. Or TWO, allow Satan to have his day and provide a means of salvation for everyone who would place their trust in GOD for this salvation.
> 
> And so GOD took it upon HIMSELF to save (whosoever will come to believe in HIM) through the MESSIAH/CHRIST. So the reality is that presently Satan is manipulating events but not without still being under GOD's divine limiting perimeters (read the book of JOB).
> 
> I'm thankful that GOD gave me an opportunity to exist and come to trust in HIM. Unfortunately, this means that there will be those who presumptuously believe that GOD isn't in charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats a rather careless attempt to re-write the bibles.
> 
> From the source document:
> 
> Genesis 3
> 1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
> 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
> 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
> 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
> 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
> 
> 
> There's no denying the source documents. The gods lied.. Satan told the truth.
> 
> It's odd that you would attempt to re-write the bibles when the bibles already describe the fable. I've seen that often before. Religionists will cite verses from the bibles, never having actually read the bibles, only to ignore what was written in favor of what they would prefer to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Adam and Eve didn't die "spiritually" (they hid themselves and pointed fingers at each other and even blamed GOD for their choices)?. Did they not grow old and eventually face physical death?
> 
> You know what is a good and evil and live your life accordingly? You never lied, cheated, stole, wished someone dead? You see that "gay" marriage is fruitless? You wouldn't think of promoting abortion? You always make decisions based entirely on what is righteous and would never try to hide anything or build yourself esteem? Need I say more?
> 
> Satan didn't tell the truth ---- he wanted Adam to think just like him (YOU CAN BE GOD). And people have been living that lie ever since ---- including you it would seem! You can thank Satan for war, but you can thank GOD for His salvation: Trailer #1 from Hacksaw Ridge (2016)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why bother re-writing the bibles when you simply ignore what is written?
> 
> 
> 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
> 
> 
> Per the fable, A&E didn't die. The gods lied. Satan told the truth.
> 
> How ironic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are Adam and Eve still living? Adam* immediately l*ost his spiritual connection with GOD. Unless GOD did something, Adam would be destined for hell. That is want spiritual death is all about --- separation from GOD. And are you in that boat at present? Do you experience a relationship with GOD or are you your own person? Think about it!
> 
> I don't rewrite the Bible --- I embrace the one we have and ask GOD to help me understand HIS message.
Click to expand...


Here you are again rewriting the bibles. I gave you the citations where the gods said that fruit theft and eating the apple would cause A&E to die. 

It was satan who said eating the apple woukd not cause A&E to die.

Who told the truth?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> So Adam and Eve


No such thing. Completely debunked by empirical knowledge.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I'm not about to re-explain the Bible to someone as smart and as educated as you present yourself. The truth is that due to Adam's presumption that what GOD told him was not true, Satan was able to gain a foothold and the entire Universe has come under the curse of SIN. GOD could deal with this in one of 2 ways. ONE, destroy every thing and begin again. This would condemned Adam for all eternity. Or TWO, allow Satan to have his day and provide a means of salvation for everyone who would place their trust in GOD for this salvation.
> 
> And so GOD took it upon HIMSELF to save (whosoever will come to believe in HIM) through the MESSIAH/CHRIST. So the reality is that presently Satan is manipulating events but not without still being under GOD's divine limiting perimeters (read the book of JOB).
> 
> I'm thankful that GOD gave me an opportunity to exist and come to trust in HIM. Unfortunately, this means that there will be those who presumptuously believe that GOD isn't in charge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats a rather careless attempt to re-write the bibles.
> 
> From the source document:
> 
> Genesis 3
> 1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
> 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
> 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
> 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
> 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
> 
> 
> There's no denying the source documents. The gods lied.. Satan told the truth.
> 
> It's odd that you would attempt to re-write the bibles when the bibles already describe the fable. I've seen that often before. Religionists will cite verses from the bibles, never having actually read the bibles, only to ignore what was written in favor of what they would prefer to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Adam and Eve didn't die "spiritually" (they hid themselves and pointed fingers at each other and even blamed GOD for their choices)?. Did they not grow old and eventually face physical death?
> 
> You know what is a good and evil and live your life accordingly? You never lied, cheated, stole, wished someone dead? You see that "gay" marriage is fruitless? You wouldn't think of promoting abortion? You always make decisions based entirely on what is righteous and would never try to hide anything or build yourself esteem? Need I say more?
> 
> Satan didn't tell the truth ---- he wanted Adam to think just like him (YOU CAN BE GOD). And people have been living that lie ever since ---- including you it would seem! You can thank Satan for war, but you can thank GOD for His salvation: Trailer #1 from Hacksaw Ridge (2016)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why bother re-writing the bibles when you simply ignore what is written?
> 
> 
> 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
> 
> 
> Per the fable, A&E didn't die. The gods lied. Satan told the truth.
> 
> How ironic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are Adam and Eve still living? Adam* immediately l*ost his spiritual connection with GOD. Unless GOD did something, Adam would be destined for hell. That is want spiritual death is all about --- separation from GOD. And are you in that boat at present? Do you experience a relationship with GOD or are you your own person? Think about it!
> 
> I don't rewrite the Bible --- I embrace the one we have and ask GOD to help me understand HIS message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you are again rewriting the bibles. I gave you the citations where the gods said that fruit theft and eating the apple would cause A&E to die.
> 
> It was satan who said eating the apple woukd not cause A&E to die.
> 
> Who told the truth?
Click to expand...

Where in the Bible does it say Adam and Eve ate an apple? The fact is that they made garments of fig leaves, The fruit may even have been a fig?


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats a rather careless attempt to re-write the bibles.
> 
> From the source document:
> 
> Genesis 3
> 1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
> 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
> 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
> 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
> 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
> 
> 
> There's no denying the source documents. The gods lied.. Satan told the truth.
> 
> It's odd that you would attempt to re-write the bibles when the bibles already describe the fable. I've seen that often before. Religionists will cite verses from the bibles, never having actually read the bibles, only to ignore what was written in favor of what they would prefer to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> So Adam and Eve didn't die "spiritually" (they hid themselves and pointed fingers at each other and even blamed GOD for their choices)?. Did they not grow old and eventually face physical death?
> 
> You know what is a good and evil and live your life accordingly? You never lied, cheated, stole, wished someone dead? You see that "gay" marriage is fruitless? You wouldn't think of promoting abortion? You always make decisions based entirely on what is righteous and would never try to hide anything or build yourself esteem? Need I say more?
> 
> Satan didn't tell the truth ---- he wanted Adam to think just like him (YOU CAN BE GOD). And people have been living that lie ever since ---- including you it would seem! You can thank Satan for war, but you can thank GOD for His salvation: Trailer #1 from Hacksaw Ridge (2016)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why bother re-writing the bibles when you simply ignore what is written?
> 
> 
> 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
> 
> 
> Per the fable, A&E didn't die. The gods lied. Satan told the truth.
> 
> How ironic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are Adam and Eve still living? Adam* immediately l*ost his spiritual connection with GOD. Unless GOD did something, Adam would be destined for hell. That is want spiritual death is all about --- separation from GOD. And are you in that boat at present? Do you experience a relationship with GOD or are you your own person? Think about it!
> 
> I don't rewrite the Bible --- I embrace the one we have and ask GOD to help me understand HIS message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you are again rewriting the bibles. I gave you the citations where the gods said that fruit theft and eating the apple would cause A&E to die.
> 
> It was satan who said eating the apple woukd not cause A&E to die.
> 
> Who told the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Bible does it say Adam and Eve ate an apple? The fact is that they made garments of fig leaves, The fruit may even have been a fig?
Click to expand...


It was an apple. Robin Hood later shot an arrow through the apple while it was sitting on Friar Tuck’s Head.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Adam and Eve didn't die "spiritually" (they hid themselves and pointed fingers at each other and even blamed GOD for their choices)?. Did they not grow old and eventually face physical death?
> 
> You know what is a good and evil and live your life accordingly? You never lied, cheated, stole, wished someone dead? You see that "gay" marriage is fruitless? You wouldn't think of promoting abortion? You always make decisions based entirely on what is righteous and would never try to hide anything or build yourself esteem? Need I say more?
> 
> Satan didn't tell the truth ---- he wanted Adam to think just like him (YOU CAN BE GOD). And people have been living that lie ever since ---- including you it would seem! You can thank Satan for war, but you can thank GOD for His salvation: Trailer #1 from Hacksaw Ridge (2016)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother re-writing the bibles when you simply ignore what is written?
> 
> 
> 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
> 
> 
> Per the fable, A&E didn't die. The gods lied. Satan told the truth.
> 
> How ironic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are Adam and Eve still living? Adam* immediately l*ost his spiritual connection with GOD. Unless GOD did something, Adam would be destined for hell. That is want spiritual death is all about --- separation from GOD. And are you in that boat at present? Do you experience a relationship with GOD or are you your own person? Think about it!
> 
> I don't rewrite the Bible --- I embrace the one we have and ask GOD to help me understand HIS message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you are again rewriting the bibles. I gave you the citations where the gods said that fruit theft and eating the apple would cause A&E to die.
> 
> It was satan who said eating the apple woukd not cause A&E to die.
> 
> Who told the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Bible does it say Adam and Eve ate an apple? The fact is that they made garments of fig leaves, The fruit may even have been a fig?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was an apple. Robin Hood later shot an arrow through the apple while it was sitting on Friar Tuck’s Head.
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Adam and Eve didn't die "spiritually" (they hid themselves and pointed fingers at each other and even blamed GOD for their choices)?. Did they not grow old and eventually face physical death?
> 
> You know what is a good and evil and live your life accordingly? You never lied, cheated, stole, wished someone dead? You see that "gay" marriage is fruitless? You wouldn't think of promoting abortion? You always make decisions based entirely on what is righteous and would never try to hide anything or build yourself esteem? Need I say more?
> 
> Satan didn't tell the truth ---- he wanted Adam to think just like him (YOU CAN BE GOD). And people have been living that lie ever since ---- including you it would seem! You can thank Satan for war, but you can thank GOD for His salvation: Trailer #1 from Hacksaw Ridge (2016)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother re-writing the bibles when you simply ignore what is written?
> 
> 
> 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
> 
> 
> Per the fable, A&E didn't die. The gods lied. Satan told the truth.
> 
> How ironic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are Adam and Eve still living? Adam* immediately l*ost his spiritual connection with GOD. Unless GOD did something, Adam would be destined for hell. That is want spiritual death is all about --- separation from GOD. And are you in that boat at present? Do you experience a relationship with GOD or are you your own person? Think about it!
> 
> I don't rewrite the Bible --- I embrace the one we have and ask GOD to help me understand HIS message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you are again rewriting the bibles. I gave you the citations where the gods said that fruit theft and eating the apple would cause A&E to die.
> 
> It was satan who said eating the apple woukd not cause A&E to die.
> 
> Who told the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Bible does it say Adam and Eve ate an apple? The fact is that they made garments of fig leaves, The fruit may even have been a fig?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was an apple. Robin Hood later shot an arrow through the apple while it was sitting on Friar Tuck’s Head.
Click to expand...

Is speculation "FACT" and do evolutionists really know what "TRUTH" is? From Simple To Complex


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother re-writing the bibles when you simply ignore what is written?
> 
> 
> 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
> 
> 
> Per the fable, A&E didn't die. The gods lied. Satan told the truth.
> 
> How ironic.
> 
> 
> 
> Are Adam and Eve still living? Adam* immediately l*ost his spiritual connection with GOD. Unless GOD did something, Adam would be destined for hell. That is want spiritual death is all about --- separation from GOD. And are you in that boat at present? Do you experience a relationship with GOD or are you your own person? Think about it!
> 
> I don't rewrite the Bible --- I embrace the one we have and ask GOD to help me understand HIS message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you are again rewriting the bibles. I gave you the citations where the gods said that fruit theft and eating the apple would cause A&E to die.
> 
> It was satan who said eating the apple woukd not cause A&E to die.
> 
> Who told the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Bible does it say Adam and Eve ate an apple? The fact is that they made garments of fig leaves, The fruit may even have been a fig?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was an apple. Robin Hood later shot an arrow through the apple while it was sitting on Friar Tuck’s Head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother re-writing the bibles when you simply ignore what is written?
> 
> 
> 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
> 
> 
> Per the fable, A&E didn't die. The gods lied. Satan told the truth.
> 
> How ironic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are Adam and Eve still living? Adam* immediately l*ost his spiritual connection with GOD. Unless GOD did something, Adam would be destined for hell. That is want spiritual death is all about --- separation from GOD. And are you in that boat at present? Do you experience a relationship with GOD or are you your own person? Think about it!
> 
> I don't rewrite the Bible --- I embrace the one we have and ask GOD to help me understand HIS message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you are again rewriting the bibles. I gave you the citations where the gods said that fruit theft and eating the apple would cause A&E to die.
> 
> It was satan who said eating the apple woukd not cause A&E to die.
> 
> Who told the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Bible does it say Adam and Eve ate an apple? The fact is that they made garments of fig leaves, The fruit may even have been a fig?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was an apple. Robin Hood later shot an arrow through the apple while it was sitting on Friar Tuck’s Head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is speculation "FACT" and do evolutionists really know what "TRUTH" is? From Simple To Complex
Click to expand...


What fact of biological evolution do you insist is speculation?


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are Adam and Eve still living? Adam* immediately l*ost his spiritual connection with GOD. Unless GOD did something, Adam would be destined for hell. That is want spiritual death is all about --- separation from GOD. And are you in that boat at present? Do you experience a relationship with GOD or are you your own person? Think about it!
> 
> I don't rewrite the Bible --- I embrace the one we have and ask GOD to help me understand HIS message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are again rewriting the bibles. I gave you the citations where the gods said that fruit theft and eating the apple would cause A&E to die.
> 
> It was satan who said eating the apple woukd not cause A&E to die.
> 
> Who told the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Bible does it say Adam and Eve ate an apple? The fact is that they made garments of fig leaves, The fruit may even have been a fig?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was an apple. Robin Hood later shot an arrow through the apple while it was sitting on Friar Tuck’s Head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are Adam and Eve still living? Adam* immediately l*ost his spiritual connection with GOD. Unless GOD did something, Adam would be destined for hell. That is want spiritual death is all about --- separation from GOD. And are you in that boat at present? Do you experience a relationship with GOD or are you your own person? Think about it!
> 
> I don't rewrite the Bible --- I embrace the one we have and ask GOD to help me understand HIS message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you are again rewriting the bibles. I gave you the citations where the gods said that fruit theft and eating the apple would cause A&E to die.
> 
> It was satan who said eating the apple woukd not cause A&E to die.
> 
> Who told the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Bible does it say Adam and Eve ate an apple? The fact is that they made garments of fig leaves, The fruit may even have been a fig?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was an apple. Robin Hood later shot an arrow through the apple while it was sitting on Friar Tuck’s Head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is speculation "FACT" and do evolutionists really know what "TRUTH" is? From Simple To Complex
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fact of biological evolution do you insist is speculation?
Click to expand...

Simple to complex for one! Note the word usage above in the articles demonstrating the evolutionist's perspective. Now read this article from the Christian perspective.  Which is less speculative?Origin of Life: Are Single Cells Really Simple?


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are again rewriting the bibles. I gave you the citations where the gods said that fruit theft and eating the apple would cause A&E to die.
> 
> It was satan who said eating the apple woukd not cause A&E to die.
> 
> Who told the truth?
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Bible does it say Adam and Eve ate an apple? The fact is that they made garments of fig leaves, The fruit may even have been a fig?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was an apple. Robin Hood later shot an arrow through the apple while it was sitting on Friar Tuck’s Head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are again rewriting the bibles. I gave you the citations where the gods said that fruit theft and eating the apple would cause A&E to die.
> 
> It was satan who said eating the apple woukd not cause A&E to die.
> 
> Who told the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Bible does it say Adam and Eve ate an apple? The fact is that they made garments of fig leaves, The fruit may even have been a fig?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was an apple. Robin Hood later shot an arrow through the apple while it was sitting on Friar Tuck’s Head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is speculation "FACT" and do evolutionists really know what "TRUTH" is? From Simple To Complex
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fact of biological evolution do you insist is speculation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simple to complex for one! Note the word usage above in the articles demonstrating the evolutionist's perspective. Now read this article from the Christian perspective.  Which is less speculative?Origin of Life: Are Single Cells Really Simple?
Click to expand...



Biological evolution does makes things more complex (bacteria to annelid worm, for example), so your "Christian perspective is clearly false. Sometimes it makes things less complex (free living organisms to degenerate parasites, for thousands of examples). Most of the time it does neither. The only direction evolution always moves is towards “more fit.” And since the definition of fitness is dependent on and changes with the environment, it is a constantly moving target.

Individual organisms do not evolve. _*Populations*_ evolve. And at any given point in time, a population of any species will have significant variation (along the continuum) for any specific physical trait we choose to consider. Their brains will be different sizes. Within a single population or a single species intelligence will vary, but along different dimensions so that one individual might excel in some dimensions, but not in others. 

Over time as populations evolve there will always be a continuum of physical traits that overlaps with that of the previous generation and the succeeding one. Any decision to take a “snapshot” in time and label that a “stage” or a “step” or even a “species” is entirely arbitrary. 


An article from “a Christian perspective” is obviously going to have an intended bias.

On the other hand, science is not a body of knowledge. It is a process-- a process of investigation that does not assume it's own infallibility. It is a process that has built in error correction, and looks for its own mistakes. But biblical literalists, by their own admission, are infallible-- incapable of making an error.

"It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the _facts_ of science can contradict the Bible." 
_-Dr. Henry Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey_


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> Individual organisms do not evolve. _*Populations*_ evolve.


And here we see why your conversation with him is utterly pointless. Anyone (who is not 10 years old) who presumes to comment in a discussion on evolution and does not understand this fundamental basis of the entire theory simply should not even be acknowledged. And did he acknowledge this egregious error, and thank you for correcting it and for giving him this information? Of course not, and he will merely repeat this same, ignorant error. Because he is a dishonest, bad faith actor, completely disinterested in any honest discussion . For him, this is merely a forum to proselytize (apparently he's tired of getting laughed out of 6th grade science classrooms).

These people simply should not even be acknowledged. They are dishonest, bad faith actors who know less than nothing about evolution and make no attempt to learn anything about evolution...yet they presume to discuss it's veracity...? **** Off , ya lying little weasels....


----------



## LittleNipper

"POPULATONS" of cats remain "populations" of cats. Populations" of dogs remain "populations of dogs. "Populations" of fruit flies remain "populations" of fruit flies. No one here is speaking of an individual creature evolving into another species. _I do get what you are saying_. The FACT is that no scientist working with any given species "population," has ever developed anything other than variations of the SAME "population."  So, evolutionists have never (through "breeding" with any intent of developing a NEW species) have ever been able to demonstrate that such is feasible. Ending up with big breeds, small breeds, thin breeds, fat breeds, deformed breeds, different color breeds, doesn't prove your case at all. All it proves that there exists variable WITH each species populations which can shift but have limitations within KINDS that are insurmountable.

I can understand how evolutionists were able to hijack education by looking down their noses at anyone willing to disagree. It insults their high opinion of themselves and their place within the general "POPULATION."


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> POPULATONS" of cats remain "populations" of cats. Populations" of dogs remain "populations of dogs. "Populations" of fruit flies remain "populations" of fruit flies.


all 100% wrong. You just failed a 7th grade science test.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> POPULATONS" of cats remain "populations" of cats. Populations" of dogs remain "populations of dogs. "Populations" of fruit flies remain "populations" of fruit flies.
> 
> 
> 
> all 100% wrong. You just failed a 7th grade science test.
Click to expand...

the only thing that failed was the indoctrination from public schools


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

progressive hunter said:


> the only thing that failed was the indoctrination from public schools


Well that's stupid and wrong too,as most Americans accept evolution as fact. What failed was your magical horseshit in light of the weight of empirical knowledge.

Go troll someone else, you little fraud.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only thing that failed was the indoctrination from public schools
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's stupid and wrong too,as most Americans accept evolution as fact. What failed was your magical horseshit in light of the weight of empirical knowledge.
> 
> Go troll someone else, you little fraud.
Click to expand...

a little testy when youre proven wrong


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> "POPULATONS" of cats remain "populations" of cats. Populations" of dogs remain "populations of dogs. "Populations" of fruit flies remain "populations" of fruit flies. No one here is speaking of an individual creature evolving into another species. _I do get what you are saying_. The FACT is that no scientist working with any given species "population," has ever developed anything other than variations of the SAME "population."  So, evolutionists have never (through "breeding" with any intent of developing a NEW species) have ever been able to demonstrate that such is feasible. Ending up with big breeds, small breeds, thin breeds, fat breeds, deformed breeds, different color breeds, doesn't prove your case at all. All it proves that there exists variable WITH each species populations which can shift but have limitations within KINDS that are insurmountable.
> 
> I can understand how evolutionists were able to hijack education by looking down their noses at anyone willing to disagree. It insults their high opinion of themselves and their place within the general "POPULATION."



I can understand as a religionist you can't accept biological evolution.

As to evolutionists hijacking education, I can understand that conspiracy theories are a convenient escape. You are free to reject science as one, vast, global conspiracy. 

Your use of the slogan "kinds" is right out of the various fundamentalist creation ministries. Using such slogans makes you an accomplice to fraud and ignorance which is exactly what fundamentalist ministries press. 

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

CB910:  New species

The above links, while they might offend your delicate religious sensibilites, address the "kinds" nonsense you find presented by the charlatans at any of the christian fundamentalist ministries.


----------



## progressive hunter

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> "POPULATONS" of cats remain "populations" of cats. Populations" of dogs remain "populations of dogs. "Populations" of fruit flies remain "populations" of fruit flies. No one here is speaking of an individual creature evolving into another species. _I do get what you are saying_. The FACT is that no scientist working with any given species "population," has ever developed anything other than variations of the SAME "population."  So, evolutionists have never (through "breeding" with any intent of developing a NEW species) have ever been able to demonstrate that such is feasible. Ending up with big breeds, small breeds, thin breeds, fat breeds, deformed breeds, different color breeds, doesn't prove your case at all. All it proves that there exists variable WITH each species populations which can shift but have limitations within KINDS that are insurmountable.
> 
> I can understand how evolutionists were able to hijack education by looking down their noses at anyone willing to disagree. It insults their high opinion of themselves and their place within the general "POPULATION."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand as a religionist you can't accept biological evolution.
> 
> As to evolutionists hijacking education, I can understand that conspiracy theories are a convenient escape. You are free to reject science as one, vast, global conspiracy.
> 
> Your use of the slogan "kinds" is right out of the various fundamentalist creation ministries. Using such slogans makes you an accomplice to fraud and ignorance which is exactly what fundamentalist ministries press.
> 
> Observed Instances of Speciation
> 
> Some More Observed Speciation Events
> 
> CB910:  New species
> 
> The above links, while they might offend your delicate religious sensibilites, address the "kinds" nonsense you find presented by the charlatans at any of the christian fundamentalist ministries.
Click to expand...

this guy spent to much time at the beach to come up with that


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> "POPULATONS" of cats remain "populations" of cats. Populations" of dogs remain "populations of dogs. "Populations" of fruit flies remain "populations" of fruit flies. No one here is speaking of an individual creature evolving into another species. _I do get what you are saying_. The FACT is that no scientist working with any given species "population," has ever developed anything other than variations of the SAME "population."  So, evolutionists have never (through "breeding" with any intent of developing a NEW species) have ever been able to demonstrate that such is feasible. Ending up with big breeds, small breeds, thin breeds, fat breeds, deformed breeds, different color breeds, doesn't prove your case at all. All it proves that there exists variable WITH each species populations which can shift but have limitations within KINDS that are insurmountable.
> 
> I can understand how evolutionists were able to hijack education by looking down their noses at anyone willing to disagree. It insults their high opinion of themselves and their place within the general "POPULATION."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand as a religionist you can't accept biological evolution.
> 
> As to evolutionists hijacking education, I can understand that conspiracy theories are a convenient escape. You are free to reject science as one, vast, global conspiracy.
> 
> Your use of the slogan "kinds" is right out of the various fundamentalist creation ministries. Using such slogans makes you an accomplice to fraud and ignorance which is exactly what fundamentalist ministries press.
> 
> Observed Instances of Speciation
> 
> Some More Observed Speciation Events
> 
> CB910:  New species
> 
> The above links, while they might offend your delicate religious sensibilites, address the "kinds" nonsense you find presented by the charlatans at any of the christian fundamentalist ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this guy spent to much time at the beach to come up with that
Click to expand...


Displaying your stupidity on a public message board. 

Nicely done.


----------



## progressive hunter

Hollie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> "POPULATONS" of cats remain "populations" of cats. Populations" of dogs remain "populations of dogs. "Populations" of fruit flies remain "populations" of fruit flies. No one here is speaking of an individual creature evolving into another species. _I do get what you are saying_. The FACT is that no scientist working with any given species "population," has ever developed anything other than variations of the SAME "population."  So, evolutionists have never (through "breeding" with any intent of developing a NEW species) have ever been able to demonstrate that such is feasible. Ending up with big breeds, small breeds, thin breeds, fat breeds, deformed breeds, different color breeds, doesn't prove your case at all. All it proves that there exists variable WITH each species populations which can shift but have limitations within KINDS that are insurmountable.
> 
> I can understand how evolutionists were able to hijack education by looking down their noses at anyone willing to disagree. It insults their high opinion of themselves and their place within the general "POPULATION."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand as a religionist you can't accept biological evolution.
> 
> As to evolutionists hijacking education, I can understand that conspiracy theories are a convenient escape. You are free to reject science as one, vast, global conspiracy.
> 
> Your use of the slogan "kinds" is right out of the various fundamentalist creation ministries. Using such slogans makes you an accomplice to fraud and ignorance which is exactly what fundamentalist ministries press.
> 
> Observed Instances of Speciation
> 
> Some More Observed Speciation Events
> 
> CB910:  New species
> 
> The above links, while they might offend your delicate religious sensibilites, address the "kinds" nonsense you find presented by the charlatans at any of the christian fundamentalist ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this guy spent to much time at the beach to come up with that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Displaying your stupidity on a public message board.
> 
> Nicely done.
Click to expand...

lifes a beach


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> POPULATONS" of cats remain "populations" of cats. Populations" of dogs remain "populations of dogs. "Populations" of fruit flies remain "populations" of fruit flies.
> 
> 
> 
> all 100% wrong. You just failed a 7th grade science test.
Click to expand...

Oh yes! I'm 100% totally wrong. I fail the course because you only want taught what you believe 100%. You don't need to prove anything through experimentation and you sure don't want anyone questioning YOUR position. It's funny --- even I can see that not everything you say is in error. However, you demonstrate why Creationists have been slowly excluded from many scientific institutions. You are an elitist, a control freak, a science Nazi and you stifle freethinking, real investigation, and believe you are 100% correct!


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> "POPULATONS" of cats remain "populations" of cats. Populations" of dogs remain "populations of dogs. "Populations" of fruit flies remain "populations" of fruit flies. No one here is speaking of an individual creature evolving into another species. _I do get what you are saying_. The FACT is that no scientist working with any given species "population," has ever developed anything other than variations of the SAME "population."  So, evolutionists have never (through "breeding" with any intent of developing a NEW species) have ever been able to demonstrate that such is feasible. Ending up with big breeds, small breeds, thin breeds, fat breeds, deformed breeds, different color breeds, doesn't prove your case at all. All it proves that there exists variable WITH each species populations which can shift but have limitations within KINDS that are insurmountable.
> 
> I can understand how evolutionists were able to hijack education by looking down their noses at anyone willing to disagree. It insults their high opinion of themselves and their place within the general "POPULATION."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand as a religionist you can't accept biological evolution.
> 
> As to evolutionists hijacking education, I can understand that conspiracy theories are a convenient escape. You are free to reject science as one, vast, global conspiracy.
> 
> Your use of the slogan "kinds" is right out of the various fundamentalist creation ministries. Using such slogans makes you an accomplice to fraud and ignorance which is exactly what fundamentalist ministries press.
> 
> Observed Instances of Speciation
> 
> Some More Observed Speciation Events
> 
> CB910:  New species
> 
> The above links, while they might offend your delicate religious sensibilites, address the "kinds" nonsense you find presented by the charlatans at any of the christian fundamentalist ministries.
Click to expand...

I actually believe that you don't know what a new species is. One species cannot breed with another species. To be a "new species" there can be no cross fertilization. In other words, a mosquito is still a mosquito and a spaniel is still a breed of dog even if it isn't a hound. PS > Darwin was proved wrong concerning his finches. They still interbreed ---- it took a devastating hurricane to prove that reality...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Oh yes! I'm 100% totally wrong.


Correct, you are.  When you say populations always "stay" something, you are 100% wrong.  The precise opposite is true, and you couldn't stop it if you tried (Well, maybe a lot of us together could in one specific case, but it would have to be a large effort, and all the other cases would continue, unabated).  Over millions of generations, two isolated populations of a single species will speciate from one another.  The odds of this not happening approach zero, and it is as as certain as the fact that fusion happens at the core of the Sun.  Mutations, drift, and selection all happen, and these are forces of nature and mathematical inevitability.  If our descendants exist 10 million years from now, it's unlikely one of them would not be able to produce fertile offspring with a human being living today.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes! I'm 100% totally wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, you are.  When you say populations always "stay" something, you are 100% wrong.  The precise opposite is true, and you couldn't stop it if you tried (Well, maybe a lot of us together could in one specific case, but it would have to be a large effort, and all the other cases would continue, unabated).  Over millions of generations, two isolated populations of a single species will speciate from one another.  The odds of this not happening approach zero, and it is as as certain as the fact that fusion happens at the core of the Sun.  Mutations, drift, and selection all happen, and these are forces of nature and mathematical inevitability.  If our descendants exist 10 million years from now, it's unlikely one of them would not be able to produce fertile offspring with a human being living today.
Click to expand...

Show us where scientists have changed any given living organism of a particular species into an entirely DIFFERENT species. If scientists cannot do this then such cannot be proven to have ever happened.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Show us where scientists have changed any given living organism of a particular species into an entirely DIFFERENT species.


Why? What an odd request. What does that have to do with anything? I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.

And why should anyone answer your questions anyway, ya rude little bastard? Every time I ask you to explain anything, you're off like a prom dress...


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us where scientists have changed any given living organism of a particular species into an entirely DIFFERENT species.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? What an odd request. What does that have to do with anything? I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.
> 
> And why should anyone answer your questions anyway, ya rude little bastard? Every time I ask you to explain anything, you're off like a prom dress...
Click to expand...

great deflection 

there is no proof what so ever that any animal or man has ever given birth to anything but its own kind


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> "POPULATONS" of cats remain "populations" of cats. Populations" of dogs remain "populations of dogs. "Populations" of fruit flies remain "populations" of fruit flies. No one here is speaking of an individual creature evolving into another species. _I do get what you are saying_. The FACT is that no scientist working with any given species "population," has ever developed anything other than variations of the SAME "population."  So, evolutionists have never (through "breeding" with any intent of developing a NEW species) have ever been able to demonstrate that such is feasible. Ending up with big breeds, small breeds, thin breeds, fat breeds, deformed breeds, different color breeds, doesn't prove your case at all. All it proves that there exists variable WITH each species populations which can shift but have limitations within KINDS that are insurmountable.
> 
> I can understand how evolutionists were able to hijack education by looking down their noses at anyone willing to disagree. It insults their high opinion of themselves and their place within the general "POPULATION."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand as a religionist you can't accept biological evolution.
> 
> As to evolutionists hijacking education, I can understand that conspiracy theories are a convenient escape. You are free to reject science as one, vast, global conspiracy.
> 
> Your use of the slogan "kinds" is right out of the various fundamentalist creation ministries. Using such slogans makes you an accomplice to fraud and ignorance which is exactly what fundamentalist ministries press.
> 
> Observed Instances of Speciation
> 
> Some More Observed Speciation Events
> 
> CB910:  New species
> 
> The above links, while they might offend your delicate religious sensibilites, address the "kinds" nonsense you find presented by the charlatans at any of the christian fundamentalist ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I actually believe that you don't know what a new species is. One species cannot breed with another species. To be a "new species" there can be no cross fertilization. In other words, a mosquito is still a mosquito and a spaniel is still a breed of dog even if it isn't a hound. PS > Darwin was proved wrong concerning his finches. They still interbreed ---- it took a devastating hurricane to prove that reality...
Click to expand...


I’m actually convinced you were not able to understand the links I gave you. One species breeding into another species is simply a nonsense slogan spewed by charlatans at one or more of your fundamentalist crank ministries.


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us where scientists have changed any given living organism of a particular species into an entirely DIFFERENT species.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? What an odd request. What does that have to do with anything? I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.
> 
> And why should anyone answer your questions anyway, ya rude little bastard? Every time I ask you to explain anything, you're off like a prom dress...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> great deflection
> 
> there is no proof what so ever that any animal or man has ever given birth to anything but its own kind
Click to expand...


Why do you think that one species would suddenly give birth to another species? That again is a reflection of someone completely ignorant of the biological sciences. Also, your use of the term ‘kind” is a dead giveaway that you’re simply parotting the nonsense you were indoctrinated with at your fundamentalist crank ministries. 

Biological evolution is change in populations over time. A rough analogy would be something like how the inventions of gods (including your gods), have changed over time.


----------



## LittleNipper

Why do you believe in millions of years of such ignorance? This is what I believe because I believe in GOD. And it makes total sense: Science and the Bible | Genesis and Genetics


----------



## progressive hunter

Hollie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us where scientists have changed any given living organism of a particular species into an entirely DIFFERENT species.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? What an odd request. What does that have to do with anything? I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.
> 
> And why should anyone answer your questions anyway, ya rude little bastard? Every time I ask you to explain anything, you're off like a prom dress...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> great deflection
> 
> there is no proof what so ever that any animal or man has ever given birth to anything but its own kind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think that one species would suddenly give birth to another species? That again is a reflection of someone completely ignorant of the biological sciences. Also, your use of the term ‘kind” is a dead giveaway that you’re simply parotting the nonsense you were indoctrinated with at your fundamentalist crank ministries.
> 
> Biological evolution is change in populations over time. A rough analogy would be something like how the inventions of gods (including your gods), have changed over time.
Click to expand...



so your playing make believe at the beach

based on that things magically change??

got any examples


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Why do you believe in millions of years of such ignorance? This is what I believe because I believe in GOD. And it makes total sense: Science and the Bible | Genesis and Genetics



From the _About_ section of your link. 

"We are a small group of creationists who focus on analyzing DNA pertaining to Genesis. Our projects include ancient man, human migration, and which animals were on Noah’s Ark. We believe that the Bible is truth and that none of the tenets of evolution are valid, including speciation and natural selection."


It actually is alarming that such wilfull ignorance exists. 

Sorry, but appeals to fear and superstition fail on many levels. . Biological evolution is a science fact with reams of data to support it. Biological organisms evolve. That fact is not disputed by the relevant science community. 

None of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to supernaturalism. If you or any creatiinists have evidence that something shows signs of supernatural design (something that could not have arisen naturally) please come forward with it. To date, no one has. Fundie Christians are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims. 

Unfortunately, there are those limited souls who obsess exclusively on a haphazard compilation of writings arbitrarily edited and dubiously translated by flawed human beings as if it _were_ an excusive and infallible literal message from a god to the exclusion of ongoing revelation through scientific inquiry. Such a fixation upon a single imperfect literary work is, of course, a common form of idolatry.


----------



## Muhammed

Death Angel said:


> Most idiots/tards think the flood was caused solely by 40 days of rain, but the truth is, GOD says he "opened the fountains of the deep."


So when did you hear GOD say that?


----------



## progressive hunter

Muhammed said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most idiots/tards think the flood was caused solely by 40 days of rain, but the truth is, GOD says he "opened the fountains of the deep."
> 
> 
> 
> So when did you hear GOD say that?
Click to expand...

when he was humping Allah up the ass


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Why do you believe in millions of years of such ignorance? This is what I believe because I believe in GOD. And it makes total sense: Science and the Bible | Genesis and Genetics


Why do you avoid every question posed to you about evolution?

Easy answer: because you know less than nothing about it.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe in millions of years of such ignorance? This is what I believe because I believe in GOD. And it makes total sense: Science and the Bible | Genesis and Genetics
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you avoid every question posed to you about evolution?
> 
> Easy answer: because you know less than nothing about it.
Click to expand...

the same reason you ignore every question


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe in millions of years of such ignorance? This is what I believe because I believe in GOD. And it makes total sense: Science and the Bible | Genesis and Genetics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the _About_ section of your link.
> 
> "We are a small group of creationists who focus on analyzing DNA pertaining to Genesis. Our projects include ancient man, human migration, and which animals were on Noah’s Ark. We believe that the Bible is truth and that none of the tenets of evolution are valid, including speciation and natural selection."
> 
> 
> It actually is alarming that such wilfull ignorance exists.
> 
> Sorry, but appeals to fear and superstition fail on many levels. . Biological evolution is a science fact with reams of data to support it. Biological organisms evolve. That fact is not disputed by the relevant science community.
> 
> None of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to supernaturalism. If you or any creatiinists have evidence that something shows signs of supernatural design (something that could not have arisen naturally) please come forward with it. To date, no one has. Fundie Christians are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims.
> 
> Unfortunately, there are those limited souls who obsess exclusively on a haphazard compilation of writings arbitrarily edited and dubiously translated by flawed human beings as if it _were_ an excusive and infallible literal message from a god to the exclusion of ongoing revelation through scientific inquiry. Such a fixation upon a single imperfect literary work is, of course, a common form of idolatry.
Click to expand...

I believe it is alarming that people do not believe in GOD. GOD and not you is in control. What keeps an asteroid from hitting the earth right now? Do you actually believe you could prevent it? I love science, but I'm not limited to what some people label as "NATURAL". I fully realize that the supernatural exists and GOD is that Creator.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe in millions of years of such ignorance? This is what I believe because I believe in GOD. And it makes total sense: Science and the Bible | Genesis and Genetics
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you avoid every question posed to you about evolution?
> 
> Easy answer: because you know less than nothing about it.
Click to expand...

I know more than you because I'm not limited to the theory of "EVOLUTION."


----------



## james bond

More evidence for God.  Science backs up the Bible regarding porn use.

"The Bible tells us, in 1 Corinthians 6:18, that sexual sin has negative physical consequences:

_Escape from sexual immorality. Every sin that a man commits is outside the body. But he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. (MEV)_

Now, science has confirmed what Gods word has established.

Regardless of the type of sexual sinpremarital sex, adultery, or viewing pornographyit alters how the human brain functions. Indulged in repeatedly, ones conscience is seared, a physical change in the brain that numbs one to the guilt and conviction of his or her wrongdoing.

*MORE POWERFUL THAN MORPHINE*

The producers of the Conquer Seriesa cinematic DVD series that helps men break free from pornography note that when porn is viewed, powerful hormones are released, including:


oxytocincalled the love hormone, it is typically released when one is hugged or kissed, regulating social interactions, sexual reproduction, and human bonding.
vasopressinused as medication, it numbs pain.
This concoction of hormones rewires the brain, giving it the wrong material, luring one deeper into a prison of his or her own making. Its intoxicating, intended to bring loved ones closer and promote mental healing, but instead having the opposite effect and confusing the mind.

Conquer Series expert contributor Heart to Heart Counseling Center Executive Director Dr. Doug Weiss said:

_When [you] have a sexual experience, your brains makes these opiates which [are] four times stronger than morphine. Boom! It hits your brain, your brain lights up like a Christmas tree. This is the highest chemical reward your brain gets for anything. Thats why a lot of guys get in trouble, even in ministry. They dont know their brain is defective._

This way, sexual sin takes a profound toll on the brain, and the rest of the body. The sinner knows watching porn is a shameful act that must be kept secret, yet each time one views it, he or she trusts it more as a result of the pairing and deep mental bond forged by the hormones."

TruNews with Rick Wiles, Real News, Latest News, Christian News


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> More evidence for God.  Science backs up the Bible regarding porn use.
> 
> "The Bible tells us, in 1 Corinthians 6:18, that sexual sin has negative physical consequences:
> 
> _Escape from sexual immorality. Every sin that a man commits is outside the body. But he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. (MEV)_
> 
> Now, science has confirmed what Gods word has established.
> 
> Regardless of the type of sexual sinpremarital sex, adultery, or viewing pornographyit alters how the human brain functions. Indulged in repeatedly, ones conscience is seared, a physical change in the brain that numbs one to the guilt and conviction of his or her wrongdoing.
> 
> *MORE POWERFUL THAN MORPHINE*
> 
> The producers of the Conquer Seriesa cinematic DVD series that helps men break free from pornography note that when porn is viewed, powerful hormones are released, including:
> 
> 
> oxytocincalled the love hormone, it is typically released when one is hugged or kissed, regulating social interactions, sexual reproduction, and human bonding.
> vasopressinused as medication, it numbs pain.
> This concoction of hormones rewires the brain, giving it the wrong material, luring one deeper into a prison of his or her own making. Its intoxicating, intended to bring loved ones closer and promote mental healing, but instead having the opposite effect and confusing the mind.
> 
> Conquer Series expert contributor Heart to Heart Counseling Center Executive Director Dr. Doug Weiss said:
> 
> _When [you] have a sexual experience, your brains makes these opiates which [are] four times stronger than morphine. Boom! It hits your brain, your brain lights up like a Christmas tree. This is the highest chemical reward your brain gets for anything. Thats why a lot of guys get in trouble, even in ministry. They dont know their brain is defective._
> 
> This way, sexual sin takes a profound toll on the brain, and the rest of the body. The sinner knows watching porn is a shameful act that must be kept secret, yet each time one views it, he or she trusts it more as a result of the pairing and deep mental bond forged by the hormones."
> 
> TruNews with Rick Wiles, Real News, Latest News, Christian News




An Introduction to Biblical Nonsense


----------



## Hollie

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Rick Wiles


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> I know more than you because I'm not limited to the theory of "EVOLUTION."


You know nothing about evolution,nor are you capable of offering any explanation for what we observe. So clearly you are full of shit and embarrassing yourself.

But, you can redeem yourself right now!

Remember when I posted to you the wolf ancestry and the species in the fossil record that spell it out? Probably not. But answer me this:

1) where did these species c9me from?
2) where did they go?
3) why do they disappear at the same place and time that other fossils appear, and a smooth transition is shown?

Go ahead, ya fraud...regale us with your knowledge that you are quick to claim you have.

You won't, you fraud.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know more than you because I'm not limited to the theory of "EVOLUTION."
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing about evolution,nor are you capable of offering any explanation for what we observe. So clearly you are full of shit and embarrassing yourself.
> 
> But, you can redeem yourself right now!
> 
> Remember when I posted to you the wolf ancestry and the species in the fossil record that spell it out? Probably not. But answer me this:
> 
> 1) where did these species c9me from?
> 2) where did they go?
> 3) why do they disappear at the same place and time that other fossils appear, and a smooth transition is shown?
> 
> Go ahead, ya fraud...regale us with your knowledge that you are quick to claim you have.
> 
> You won't, you fraud.
Click to expand...

but we  havent observed any of them,,,all thats happened is they found fossils which only means something died and got buried


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know more than you because I'm not limited to the theory of "EVOLUTION."
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing about evolution,nor are you capable of offering any explanation for what we observe. So clearly you are full of shit and embarrassing yourself.
> 
> But, you can redeem yourself right now!
> 
> Remember when I posted to you the wolf ancestry and the species in the fossil record that spell it out? Probably not. But answer me this:
> 
> 1) where did these species c9me from?
> 2) where did they go?
> 3) why do they disappear at the same place and time that other fossils appear, and a smooth transition is shown?
> 
> Go ahead, ya fraud...regale us with your knowledge that you are quick to claim you have.
> 
> You won't, you fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but we  havent observed any of them,,,all thats happened is they found fossils which only means something died and got buried
Click to expand...

Shut up troll.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know more than you because I'm not limited to the theory of "EVOLUTION."
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing about evolution,nor are you capable of offering any explanation for what we observe. So clearly you are full of shit and embarrassing yourself.
> 
> But, you can redeem yourself right now!
> 
> Remember when I posted to you the wolf ancestry and the species in the fossil record that spell it out? Probably not. But answer me this:
> 
> 1) where did these species c9me from?
> 2) where did they go?
> 3) why do they disappear at the same place and time that other fossils appear, and a smooth transition is shown?
> 
> Go ahead, ya fraud...regale us with your knowledge that you are quick to claim you have.
> 
> You won't, you fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but we  havent observed any of them,,,all thats happened is they found fossils which only means something died and got buried
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shut up troll.
Click to expand...

didnt expect much more from you


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence for God.  Science backs up the Bible regarding porn use.
> 
> "The Bible tells us, in 1 Corinthians 6:18, that sexual sin has negative physical consequences:
> 
> _Escape from sexual immorality. Every sin that a man commits is outside the body. But he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. (MEV)_
> 
> Now, science has confirmed what Gods word has established.
> 
> Regardless of the type of sexual sinpremarital sex, adultery, or viewing pornographyit alters how the human brain functions. Indulged in repeatedly, ones conscience is seared, a physical change in the brain that numbs one to the guilt and conviction of his or her wrongdoing.
> 
> *MORE POWERFUL THAN MORPHINE*
> 
> The producers of the Conquer Seriesa cinematic DVD series that helps men break free from pornography note that when porn is viewed, powerful hormones are released, including:
> 
> 
> oxytocincalled the love hormone, it is typically released when one is hugged or kissed, regulating social interactions, sexual reproduction, and human bonding.
> vasopressinused as medication, it numbs pain.
> This concoction of hormones rewires the brain, giving it the wrong material, luring one deeper into a prison of his or her own making. Its intoxicating, intended to bring loved ones closer and promote mental healing, but instead having the opposite effect and confusing the mind.
> 
> Conquer Series expert contributor Heart to Heart Counseling Center Executive Director Dr. Doug Weiss said:
> 
> _When [you] have a sexual experience, your brains makes these opiates which [are] four times stronger than morphine. Boom! It hits your brain, your brain lights up like a Christmas tree. This is the highest chemical reward your brain gets for anything. Thats why a lot of guys get in trouble, even in ministry. They dont know their brain is defective._
> 
> This way, sexual sin takes a profound toll on the brain, and the rest of the body. The sinner knows watching porn is a shameful act that must be kept secret, yet each time one views it, he or she trusts it more as a result of the pairing and deep mental bond forged by the hormones."
> 
> TruNews with Rick Wiles, Real News, Latest News, Christian News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An Introduction to Biblical Nonsense
Click to expand...


People get addicted on porn like drugs.  That is not nonsense.  It sounds you're addicted to nonsense.


----------



## LittleNipper

And YES! There is scientific proof that the entire earth was once covered in water and this is from a secular group nonetheless:  Early Earth 'was covered in water' | Metro News


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> And YES! There is scientific proof that the entire earth was once covered in water and this is from a secular group nonetheless:  Early Earth 'was covered in water' | Metro News



Firstly, your frantic claim to "proof" is based upon a study, that has not undergone peer review.

Secondly, did you read what was in the article?

".... billions of years ago the Earth’s deep mantle was 200C hotter than it is today."

Billions of years ago directly refutes the ID'iot / creationist claim to a biblical 6,000 year old earth. 

Oops.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence for God.  Science backs up the Bible regarding porn use.
> 
> "The Bible tells us, in 1 Corinthians 6:18, that sexual sin has negative physical consequences:
> 
> _Escape from sexual immorality. Every sin that a man commits is outside the body. But he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. (MEV)_
> 
> Now, science has confirmed what Gods word has established.
> 
> Regardless of the type of sexual sinpremarital sex, adultery, or viewing pornographyit alters how the human brain functions. Indulged in repeatedly, ones conscience is seared, a physical change in the brain that numbs one to the guilt and conviction of his or her wrongdoing.
> 
> *MORE POWERFUL THAN MORPHINE*
> 
> The producers of the Conquer Seriesa cinematic DVD series that helps men break free from pornography note that when porn is viewed, powerful hormones are released, including:
> 
> 
> oxytocincalled the love hormone, it is typically released when one is hugged or kissed, regulating social interactions, sexual reproduction, and human bonding.
> vasopressinused as medication, it numbs pain.
> This concoction of hormones rewires the brain, giving it the wrong material, luring one deeper into a prison of his or her own making. Its intoxicating, intended to bring loved ones closer and promote mental healing, but instead having the opposite effect and confusing the mind.
> 
> Conquer Series expert contributor Heart to Heart Counseling Center Executive Director Dr. Doug Weiss said:
> 
> _When [you] have a sexual experience, your brains makes these opiates which [are] four times stronger than morphine. Boom! It hits your brain, your brain lights up like a Christmas tree. This is the highest chemical reward your brain gets for anything. Thats why a lot of guys get in trouble, even in ministry. They dont know their brain is defective._
> 
> This way, sexual sin takes a profound toll on the brain, and the rest of the body. The sinner knows watching porn is a shameful act that must be kept secret, yet each time one views it, he or she trusts it more as a result of the pairing and deep mental bond forged by the hormones."
> 
> TruNews with Rick Wiles, Real News, Latest News, Christian News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An Introduction to Biblical Nonsense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People get addicted on porn like drugs.  That is not nonsense.  It sounds you're addicted to nonsense.
Click to expand...


On the other hand, you're addicted to sidestepping and deflection when direct refutation is presented to biblical "science" claims. 

Absurdities of biblical "science" claims are easily refuted.


----------



## progressive hunter

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And YES! There is scientific proof that the entire earth was once covered in water and this is from a secular group nonetheless:  Early Earth 'was covered in water' | Metro News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, your frantic claim to "proof" is based upon a study, that has not undergone peer review.
> 
> Secondly, did you read what was in the article?
> 
> ".... billions of years ago the Earth’s deep mantle was 200C hotter than it is today."
> 
> Billions of years ago directly refutes the ID'iot / creationist claim to a biblical 6,000 year old earth.
> 
> Oops.
Click to expand...

but there is no proof the earth is billions of yrs old,,,in fact there is more proof its far younger,,,didnt you read our articles???


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> And YES! There is scientific proof that the entire earth was once covered in water and this is from a secular group nonetheless:  Early Earth 'was covered in water' | Metro News


Oh,so now you are deferring to scientists? So they are "spot on", right up until they bump up against your iron age fetishes, eh?

Let's see what the scientists in your article say, since you didn't read a single word of it. Pay attention:

"
*However, unlike in the movie, the oceans 2.5 billion years ago would have been devoid of fish, which had not yet evolved. Back then life consisted of nothing more complex than algae and bacteria."*


So...are they correct? You cited them, after all.


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And YES! There is scientific proof that the entire earth was once covered in water and this is from a secular group nonetheless:  Early Earth 'was covered in water' | Metro News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, your frantic claim to "proof" is based upon a study, that has not undergone peer review.
> 
> Secondly, did you read what was in the article?
> 
> ".... billions of years ago the Earth’s deep mantle was 200C hotter than it is today."
> 
> Billions of years ago directly refutes the ID'iot / creationist claim to a biblical 6,000 year old earth.
> 
> Oops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there is no proof the earth is billions of yrs old,,,in fact there is more proof its far younger,,,didnt you read our articles???
Click to expand...


The article you linked specifically references a planet billions of years old. 

It appears you only read the headline and you now want to selectively pick and choose what you call "facts". 

Next time, read the articles you link to so you don't completely destroy you own argument.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence for God.  Science backs up the Bible regarding porn use.
> 
> "The Bible tells us, in 1 Corinthians 6:18, that sexual sin has negative physical consequences:
> 
> _Escape from sexual immorality. Every sin that a man commits is outside the body. But he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. (MEV)_
> 
> Now, science has confirmed what Gods word has established.
> 
> Regardless of the type of sexual sinpremarital sex, adultery, or viewing pornographyit alters how the human brain functions. Indulged in repeatedly, ones conscience is seared, a physical change in the brain that numbs one to the guilt and conviction of his or her wrongdoing.
> 
> *MORE POWERFUL THAN MORPHINE*
> 
> The producers of the Conquer Seriesa cinematic DVD series that helps men break free from pornography note that when porn is viewed, powerful hormones are released, including:
> 
> 
> oxytocincalled the love hormone, it is typically released when one is hugged or kissed, regulating social interactions, sexual reproduction, and human bonding.
> vasopressinused as medication, it numbs pain.
> This concoction of hormones rewires the brain, giving it the wrong material, luring one deeper into a prison of his or her own making. Its intoxicating, intended to bring loved ones closer and promote mental healing, but instead having the opposite effect and confusing the mind.
> 
> Conquer Series expert contributor Heart to Heart Counseling Center Executive Director Dr. Doug Weiss said:
> 
> _When [you] have a sexual experience, your brains makes these opiates which [are] four times stronger than morphine. Boom! It hits your brain, your brain lights up like a Christmas tree. This is the highest chemical reward your brain gets for anything. Thats why a lot of guys get in trouble, even in ministry. They dont know their brain is defective._
> 
> This way, sexual sin takes a profound toll on the brain, and the rest of the body. The sinner knows watching porn is a shameful act that must be kept secret, yet each time one views it, he or she trusts it more as a result of the pairing and deep mental bond forged by the hormones."
> 
> TruNews with Rick Wiles, Real News, Latest News, Christian News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An Introduction to Biblical Nonsense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People get addicted on porn like drugs.  That is not nonsense.  It sounds you're addicted to nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the other hand, you're addicted to sidestepping and deflection when direct refutation is presented to biblical "science" claims.
> 
> Absurdities of biblical "science" claims are easily refuted.
Click to expand...


What's the most prescribed medicine?  It's pain relief meds and people are wanting the strongest, getting addicted and dying for it.

Why do we watch porn for?  Pleasure and prurient interest.

The above chemicals are good in moderation.  _*What argument do you have when they are in excess and not in moderation, i.e. causing one to head towards addiction?*_

I'm only telling it like it is -- TRUTH.  Your Satan filter has made you see "sidestepping and deflection" and think you have "direct refutation" when you are the one who is WRONG.  Like I have been saying atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.  Otherwise, you would be presenting better arguments by using the scientific method.  None of your theories are observable, testable nor falsifiable while science backs up the Bible.

You won't be able to answer my question, when I just presented more evidence for the Bible and how science backs it up.  This is ancient text we found and verified and it knows about stuff people do on the internet today.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hahaha...did you get all that, people? Let me review:

When you believe the entire scientific community and all the evidence ever collected over the insane ramblings of a person with nothing but iron aged fairy tales in tow, that is your "Satan filter", causing you to be evil.

And now you understand why I put nauseating little frauds like Bond on the same shelf with voodoo shamans, snake oil salesmen, and one eyed gypsies willing to teach you tomorrow's lottery numbers. He's a fucking freak just as much as any charlatan that has ever lived. He doesn't get cover just because he is cloaking his freakishness in a major religion .


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hahaha...did you get all that, people? Let me review:
> 
> When you believe the entire scientific community and all the evidence ever collected over the insane ramblings of a person with nothing but iron aged fairy tales in tow, that is your "Satan filter", causing you to be evil.
> 
> And now you understand why I put nauseating little frauds like Bond on the same shelf with voodoo shamans, snake oil salesmen, and one eyed gypsies willing to teach you tomorrow's lottery numbers. He's a fucking freak just as much as any charlatan that has ever lived. He doesn't get cover just because he is cloaking his freakishness in a major religion .


but theres been no evidence,,,just speculation and assumptions


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us where scientists have changed any given living organism of a particular species into an entirely DIFFERENT species.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? What an odd request. What does that have to do with anything? I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.
> 
> And why should anyone answer your questions anyway, ya rude little bastard? Every time I ask you to explain anything, you're off like a prom dress...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> great deflection
> 
> there is no proof what so ever that any animal or man has ever given birth to anything but its own kind
Click to expand...

If you and your wife have dark hair, and you have a child that has blond hair, haven't given birth to something that is "not your own kind?"


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us where scientists have changed any given living organism of a particular species into an entirely DIFFERENT species.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? What an odd request. What does that have to do with anything? I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.
> 
> And why should anyone answer your questions anyway, ya rude little bastard? Every time I ask you to explain anything, you're off like a prom dress...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> great deflection
> 
> there is no proof what so ever that any animal or man has ever given birth to anything but its own kind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you and your wife have dark hair, and you have a child that has blond hair, haven't given birth to something that is "not your own kind?"
Click to expand...

I have blonde hair and my wife has brown hair and we dont have children


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Troll ^^


----------



## bripat9643

LittleNipper said:


> And YES! There is scientific proof that the entire earth was once covered in water and this is from a secular group nonetheless:  Early Earth 'was covered in water' | Metro News


True, it was pretty close to being entirely covered with water 4 billion years ago, but I doubt that's what you mean.


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us where scientists have changed any given living organism of a particular species into an entirely DIFFERENT species.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? What an odd request. What does that have to do with anything? I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.
> 
> And why should anyone answer your questions anyway, ya rude little bastard? Every time I ask you to explain anything, you're off like a prom dress...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> great deflection
> 
> there is no proof what so ever that any animal or man has ever given birth to anything but its own kind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you and your wife have dark hair, and you have a child that has blond hair, haven't given birth to something that is "not your own kind?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have blonde hair and my wife has brown hair and we dont have children
Click to expand...

What part of "if" didn't you understand?


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And YES! There is scientific proof that the entire earth was once covered in water and this is from a secular group nonetheless:  Early Earth 'was covered in water' | Metro News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, your frantic claim to "proof" is based upon a study, that has not undergone peer review.
> 
> Secondly, did you read what was in the article?
> 
> ".... billions of years ago the Earth’s deep mantle was 200C hotter than it is today."
> 
> Billions of years ago directly refutes the ID'iot / creationist claim to a biblical 6,000 year old earth.
> 
> Oops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there is no proof the earth is billions of yrs old,,,in fact there is more proof its far younger,,,didnt you read our articles???
Click to expand...

The dendrochronologic record—tree ring data—now goes back 12,000 years in some parts of the world. That makes a mockery of Bishop Ushers calculation for the age of the earth of 6,000 years.


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And YES! There is scientific proof that the entire earth was once covered in water and this is from a secular group nonetheless:  Early Earth 'was covered in water' | Metro News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, your frantic claim to "proof" is based upon a study, that has not undergone peer review.
> 
> Secondly, did you read what was in the article?
> 
> ".... billions of years ago the Earth’s deep mantle was 200C hotter than it is today."
> 
> Billions of years ago directly refutes the ID'iot / creationist claim to a biblical 6,000 year old earth.
> 
> Oops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there is no proof the earth is billions of yrs old,,,in fact there is more proof its far younger,,,didnt you read our articles???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The dendrochronologic record—tree ring data—now goes back 12,000 years in some parts of the world. That makes a mockery of Bishop Ushers calculation for the age of the earth of 6,000 years.
Click to expand...



no it doesnt


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us where scientists have changed any given living organism of a particular species into an entirely DIFFERENT species.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? What an odd request. What does that have to do with anything? I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.
> 
> And why should anyone answer your questions anyway, ya rude little bastard? Every time I ask you to explain anything, you're off like a prom dress...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> great deflection
> 
> there is no proof what so ever that any animal or man has ever given birth to anything but its own kind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you and your wife have dark hair, and you have a child that has blond hair, haven't given birth to something that is "not your own kind?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have blonde hair and my wife has brown hair and we dont have children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of "if" didn't you understand?
Click to expand...

sorry I dont like playing make believe


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And YES! There is scientific proof that the entire earth was once covered in water and this is from a secular group nonetheless:  Early Earth 'was covered in water' | Metro News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, your frantic claim to "proof" is based upon a study, that has not undergone peer review.
> 
> Secondly, did you read what was in the article?
> 
> ".... billions of years ago the Earth’s deep mantle was 200C hotter than it is today."
> 
> Billions of years ago directly refutes the ID'iot / creationist claim to a biblical 6,000 year old earth.
> 
> Oops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there is no proof the earth is billions of yrs old,,,in fact there is more proof its far younger,,,didnt you read our articles???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The dendrochronologic record—tree ring data—now goes back 12,000 years in some parts of the world. That makes a mockery of Bishop Ushers calculation for the age of the earth of 6,000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it doesnt
Click to expand...

ROFL!  Now I'm convinced!


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? What an odd request. What does that have to do with anything? I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.
> 
> And why should anyone answer your questions anyway, ya rude little bastard? Every time I ask you to explain anything, you're off like a prom dress...
> 
> 
> 
> great deflection
> 
> there is no proof what so ever that any animal or man has ever given birth to anything but its own kind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you and your wife have dark hair, and you have a child that has blond hair, haven't given birth to something that is "not your own kind?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have blonde hair and my wife has brown hair and we dont have children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of "if" didn't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry I dont like playing make believe
Click to expand...

You mean you are incapable of analyzing facts and logic.


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> great deflection
> 
> there is no proof what so ever that any animal or man has ever given birth to anything but its own kind
> 
> 
> 
> If you and your wife have dark hair, and you have a child that has blond hair, haven't given birth to something that is "not your own kind?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have blonde hair and my wife has brown hair and we dont have children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of "if" didn't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry I dont like playing make believe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean you are incapable of analyzing facts and logic.
Click to expand...

its the facts and logic thats the problem


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you and your wife have dark hair, and you have a child that has blond hair, haven't given birth to something that is "not your own kind?"
> 
> 
> 
> I have blonde hair and my wife has brown hair and we dont have children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of "if" didn't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry I dont like playing make believe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean you are incapable of analyzing facts and logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> its the facts and logic thats the problem
Click to expand...

True.  You don't comprehend them.


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And YES! There is scientific proof that the entire earth was once covered in water and this is from a secular group nonetheless:  Early Earth 'was covered in water' | Metro News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, your frantic claim to "proof" is based upon a study, that has not undergone peer review.
> 
> Secondly, did you read what was in the article?
> 
> ".... billions of years ago the Earth’s deep mantle was 200C hotter than it is today."
> 
> Billions of years ago directly refutes the ID'iot / creationist claim to a biblical 6,000 year old earth.
> 
> Oops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there is no proof the earth is billions of yrs old,,,in fact there is more proof its far younger,,,didnt you read our articles???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The dendrochronologic record—tree ring data—now goes back 12,000 years in some parts of the world. That makes a mockery of Bishop Ushers calculation for the age of the earth of 6,000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it doesnt
Click to expand...


Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us where scientists have changed any given living organism of a particular species into an entirely DIFFERENT species.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? What an odd request. What does that have to do with anything? I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.
> 
> And why should anyone answer your questions anyway, ya rude little bastard? Every time I ask you to explain anything, you're off like a prom dress...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> great deflection
> 
> there is no proof what so ever that any animal or man has ever given birth to anything but its own kind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you and your wife have dark hair, and you have a child that has blond hair, haven't given birth to something that is "not your own kind?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have blonde hair and my wife has brown hair and we dont have children
Click to expand...


I’m thankful people like you don’t breed.


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And YES! There is scientific proof that the entire earth was once covered in water and this is from a secular group nonetheless:  Early Earth 'was covered in water' | Metro News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, your frantic claim to "proof" is based upon a study, that has not undergone peer review.
> 
> Secondly, did you read what was in the article?
> 
> ".... billions of years ago the Earth’s deep mantle was 200C hotter than it is today."
> 
> Billions of years ago directly refutes the ID'iot / creationist claim to a biblical 6,000 year old earth.
> 
> Oops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there is no proof the earth is billions of yrs old,,,in fact there is more proof its far younger,,,didnt you read our articles???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The dendrochronologic record—tree ring data—now goes back 12,000 years in some parts of the world. That makes a mockery of Bishop Ushers calculation for the age of the earth of 6,000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it doesnt
Click to expand...


Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki​
_*Ice layering: 145,000*



A section of an ice core with clearly defined annual layers.

Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing. 

Annual differences in temperature and irradiation cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice, much like tree rings. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing upon close inspection. 

Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an Earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an absurdly high average of ten layers per year, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young Earth creationists.[20]

Nevertheless, the age of the Earth identified by these means is *160,000 years* (±15,000 years), which makes it excruciatingly unlikely that the ice is anything less than 145,000 years. _​


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And YES! There is scientific proof that the entire earth was once covered in water and this is from a secular group nonetheless:  Early Earth 'was covered in water' | Metro News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, your frantic claim to "proof" is based upon a study, that has not undergone peer review.
> 
> Secondly, did you read what was in the article?
> 
> ".... billions of years ago the Earth’s deep mantle was 200C hotter than it is today."
> 
> Billions of years ago directly refutes the ID'iot / creationist claim to a biblical 6,000 year old earth.
> 
> Oops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there is no proof the earth is billions of yrs old,,,in fact there is more proof its far younger,,,didnt you read our articles???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The dendrochronologic record—tree ring data—now goes back 12,000 years in some parts of the world. That makes a mockery of Bishop Ushers calculation for the age of the earth of 6,000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it doesnt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki​
> _*Ice layering: 145,000*
> 
> 
> 
> A section of an ice core with clearly defined annual layers.
> 
> Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing.
> 
> Annual differences in temperature and irradiation cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice, much like tree rings. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing upon close inspection.
> 
> Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an Earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an absurdly high average of ten layers per year, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young Earth creationists.[20]
> 
> Nevertheless, the age of the Earth identified by these means is *160,000 years* (±15,000 years), which makes it excruciatingly unlikely that the ice is anything less than 145,000 years. _​
Click to expand...



if something was buried 75 yrs ago how many ice layers would there be???


----------



## progressive hunter

Hollie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us where scientists have changed any given living organism of a particular species into an entirely DIFFERENT species.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? What an odd request. What does that have to do with anything? I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.
> 
> And why should anyone answer your questions anyway, ya rude little bastard? Every time I ask you to explain anything, you're off like a prom dress...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> great deflection
> 
> there is no proof what so ever that any animal or man has ever given birth to anything but its own kind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you and your wife have dark hair, and you have a child that has blond hair, haven't given birth to something that is "not your own kind?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have blonde hair and my wife has brown hair and we dont have children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’m thankful people like you don’t breed.
Click to expand...

too late I have 2 boys


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, your frantic claim to "proof" is based upon a study, that has not undergone peer review.
> 
> Secondly, did you read what was in the article?
> 
> ".... billions of years ago the Earth’s deep mantle was 200C hotter than it is today."
> 
> Billions of years ago directly refutes the ID'iot / creationist claim to a biblical 6,000 year old earth.
> 
> Oops.
> 
> 
> 
> but there is no proof the earth is billions of yrs old,,,in fact there is more proof its far younger,,,didnt you read our articles???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The dendrochronologic record—tree ring data—now goes back 12,000 years in some parts of the world. That makes a mockery of Bishop Ushers calculation for the age of the earth of 6,000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it doesnt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki​
> _*Ice layering: 145,000*
> 
> 
> 
> A section of an ice core with clearly defined annual layers.
> 
> Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing.
> 
> Annual differences in temperature and irradiation cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice, much like tree rings. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing upon close inspection.
> 
> Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an Earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an absurdly high average of ten layers per year, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young Earth creationists.[20]
> 
> Nevertheless, the age of the Earth identified by these means is *160,000 years* (±15,000 years), which makes it excruciatingly unlikely that the ice is anything less than 145,000 years. _​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if something was buried 75 yrs ago how many ice layers would there be???
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand your question.


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> but there is no proof the earth is billions of yrs old,,,in fact there is more proof its far younger,,,didnt you read our articles???
> 
> 
> 
> The dendrochronologic record—tree ring data—now goes back 12,000 years in some parts of the world. That makes a mockery of Bishop Ushers calculation for the age of the earth of 6,000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it doesnt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki​
> _*Ice layering: 145,000*
> 
> 
> 
> A section of an ice core with clearly defined annual layers.
> 
> Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing.
> 
> Annual differences in temperature and irradiation cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice, much like tree rings. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing upon close inspection.
> 
> Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an Earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an absurdly high average of ten layers per year, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young Earth creationists.[20]
> 
> Nevertheless, the age of the Earth identified by these means is *160,000 years* (±15,000 years), which makes it excruciatingly unlikely that the ice is anything less than 145,000 years. _​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if something was buried 75 yrs ago how many ice layers would there be???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your question.
Click to expand...

you wouldnt


ice llayers mean nothing


The lost squadron - creation.com


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence for God.  Science backs up the Bible regarding porn use.
> 
> "The Bible tells us, in 1 Corinthians 6:18, that sexual sin has negative physical consequences:
> 
> _Escape from sexual immorality. Every sin that a man commits is outside the body. But he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. (MEV)_
> 
> Now, science has confirmed what Gods word has established.
> 
> Regardless of the type of sexual sinpremarital sex, adultery, or viewing pornographyit alters how the human brain functions. Indulged in repeatedly, ones conscience is seared, a physical change in the brain that numbs one to the guilt and conviction of his or her wrongdoing.
> 
> *MORE POWERFUL THAN MORPHINE*
> 
> The producers of the Conquer Seriesa cinematic DVD series that helps men break free from pornography note that when porn is viewed, powerful hormones are released, including:
> 
> 
> oxytocincalled the love hormone, it is typically released when one is hugged or kissed, regulating social interactions, sexual reproduction, and human bonding.
> vasopressinused as medication, it numbs pain.
> This concoction of hormones rewires the brain, giving it the wrong material, luring one deeper into a prison of his or her own making. Its intoxicating, intended to bring loved ones closer and promote mental healing, but instead having the opposite effect and confusing the mind.
> 
> Conquer Series expert contributor Heart to Heart Counseling Center Executive Director Dr. Doug Weiss said:
> 
> _When [you] have a sexual experience, your brains makes these opiates which [are] four times stronger than morphine. Boom! It hits your brain, your brain lights up like a Christmas tree. This is the highest chemical reward your brain gets for anything. Thats why a lot of guys get in trouble, even in ministry. They dont know their brain is defective._
> 
> This way, sexual sin takes a profound toll on the brain, and the rest of the body. The sinner knows watching porn is a shameful act that must be kept secret, yet each time one views it, he or she trusts it more as a result of the pairing and deep mental bond forged by the hormones."
> 
> TruNews with Rick Wiles, Real News, Latest News, Christian News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An Introduction to Biblical Nonsense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People get addicted on porn like drugs.  That is not nonsense.  It sounds you're addicted to nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the other hand, you're addicted to sidestepping and deflection when direct refutation is presented to biblical "science" claims.
> 
> Absurdities of biblical "science" claims are easily refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the most prescribed medicine?  It's pain relief meds and people are wanting the strongest, getting addicted and dying for it.
> 
> Why do we watch porn for?  Pleasure and prurient interest.
> 
> The above chemicals are good in moderation.  _*What argument do you have when they are in excess and not in moderation, i.e. causing one to head towards addiction?*_
> 
> I'm only telling it like it is -- TRUTH.  Your Satan filter has made you see "sidestepping and deflection" and think you have "direct refutation" when you are the one who is WRONG.  Like I have been saying atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.  Otherwise, you would be presenting better arguments by using the scientific method.  None of your theories are observable, testable nor falsifiable while science backs up the Bible.
> 
> You won't be able to answer my question, when I just presented more evidence for the Bible and how science backs it up.  This is ancient text we found and verified and it knows about stuff people do on the internet today.
Click to expand...


Sorry, your appeals to Satan and other ancient fears and superstitious nonsense are yours to resolve. 

The facts are, biological evolution, science, medicine... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars. Further, we actually have repeatable results that confirm the reliability of the scientific method, Your loathing for science, for reason and rationality while living your miserable existence in trembling fear of angry gods is truly pitiable. When it comes to ancient tales and fables, which are demonstrably wrong, the ranting from the hyper-religious   devolve quickly into screeching tirades. 

For all your screeching about “bible science”, it’s obvious you can’t provide a single, specific “scientific fact” from any of the various bibles.


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dendrochronologic record—tree ring data—now goes back 12,000 years in some parts of the world. That makes a mockery of Bishop Ushers calculation for the age of the earth of 6,000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no it doesnt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki​
> _*Ice layering: 145,000*
> 
> 
> 
> A section of an ice core with clearly defined annual layers.
> 
> Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing.
> 
> Annual differences in temperature and irradiation cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice, much like tree rings. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing upon close inspection.
> 
> Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an Earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an absurdly high average of ten layers per year, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young Earth creationists.[20]
> 
> Nevertheless, the age of the Earth identified by these means is *160,000 years* (±15,000 years), which makes it excruciatingly unlikely that the ice is anything less than 145,000 years. _​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if something was buried 75 yrs ago how many ice layers would there be???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you wouldnt
> 
> 
> ice llayers mean nothing
> 
> 
> The lost squadron - creation.com
Click to expand...

You mean they don't show the snow that accumulated over a year?


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it doesnt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki​
> _*Ice layering: 145,000*
> 
> 
> 
> A section of an ice core with clearly defined annual layers.
> 
> Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing.
> 
> Annual differences in temperature and irradiation cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice, much like tree rings. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing upon close inspection.
> 
> Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an Earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an absurdly high average of ten layers per year, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young Earth creationists.[20]
> 
> Nevertheless, the age of the Earth identified by these means is *160,000 years* (±15,000 years), which makes it excruciatingly unlikely that the ice is anything less than 145,000 years. _​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if something was buried 75 yrs ago how many ice layers would there be???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you wouldnt
> 
> 
> ice llayers mean nothing
> 
> 
> The lost squadron - creation.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the don't show the snow that accumulated over a year?
Click to expand...



NOPE,, and if you read the article it will show the planes were buried about 75 yrs ago and had hundreds if not thousands of layers and was several hundred feet deep


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dendrochronologic record—tree ring data—now goes back 12,000 years in some parts of the world. That makes a mockery of Bishop Ushers calculation for the age of the earth of 6,000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no it doesnt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki​
> _*Ice layering: 145,000*
> 
> 
> 
> A section of an ice core with clearly defined annual layers.
> 
> Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing.
> 
> Annual differences in temperature and irradiation cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice, much like tree rings. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing upon close inspection.
> 
> Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an Earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an absurdly high average of ten layers per year, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young Earth creationists.[20]
> 
> Nevertheless, the age of the Earth identified by these means is *160,000 years* (±15,000 years), which makes it excruciatingly unlikely that the ice is anything less than 145,000 years. _​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if something was buried 75 yrs ago how many ice layers would there be???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you wouldnt
> 
> 
> ice llayers mean nothing
> 
> 
> The lost squadron - creation.com
Click to expand...


Ignorance, falsehoods and misrepresentations brought to you by the charlatans at one of the most notoriously inept fundamentalist ministries.


----------



## progressive hunter

Hollie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it doesnt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki​
> _*Ice layering: 145,000*
> 
> 
> 
> A section of an ice core with clearly defined annual layers.
> 
> Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing.
> 
> Annual differences in temperature and irradiation cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice, much like tree rings. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing upon close inspection.
> 
> Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an Earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an absurdly high average of ten layers per year, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young Earth creationists.[20]
> 
> Nevertheless, the age of the Earth identified by these means is *160,000 years* (±15,000 years), which makes it excruciatingly unlikely that the ice is anything less than 145,000 years. _​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if something was buried 75 yrs ago how many ice layers would there be???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you wouldnt
> 
> 
> ice llayers mean nothing
> 
> 
> The lost squadron - creation.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance, falsehoods and misrepresentations brought to you by the charlatans at one of the most notoriously inept fundamentalist ministries.
Click to expand...

coming from a dumb **** that thinks beachs are a conspiracy theory that doesnt mean much


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki​
> _*Ice layering: 145,000*
> 
> 
> 
> A section of an ice core with clearly defined annual layers.
> 
> Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing.
> 
> Annual differences in temperature and irradiation cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice, much like tree rings. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing upon close inspection.
> 
> Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an Earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an absurdly high average of ten layers per year, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young Earth creationists.[20]
> 
> Nevertheless, the age of the Earth identified by these means is *160,000 years* (±15,000 years), which makes it excruciatingly unlikely that the ice is anything less than 145,000 years. _​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if something was buried 75 yrs ago how many ice layers would there be???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you wouldnt
> 
> 
> ice llayers mean nothing
> 
> 
> The lost squadron - creation.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance, falsehoods and misrepresentations brought to you by the charlatans at one of the most notoriously inept fundamentalist ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> coming from a dumb **** that thinks beachs are a conspiracy theory that doesnt mean much
Click to expand...


I can see you’re angry and emotive. Your ignorance is of your own making. 

Average annual snowfall in the Antarctic is only about 6.5 inches. 

What snowfall amounts are listed in your science texts of the Bibles?


----------



## bripat9643

Hollie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it doesnt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki​
> _*Ice layering: 145,000*
> 
> 
> 
> A section of an ice core with clearly defined annual layers.
> 
> Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing.
> 
> Annual differences in temperature and irradiation cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice, much like tree rings. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing upon close inspection.
> 
> Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an Earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an absurdly high average of ten layers per year, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young Earth creationists.[20]
> 
> Nevertheless, the age of the Earth identified by these means is *160,000 years* (±15,000 years), which makes it excruciatingly unlikely that the ice is anything less than 145,000 years. _​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if something was buried 75 yrs ago how many ice layers would there be???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you wouldnt
> 
> 
> ice llayers mean nothing
> 
> 
> The lost squadron - creation.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance, falsehoods and misrepresentations brought to you by the charlatans at one of the most notoriously inept fundamentalist ministries.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to any article the explains how "Glacier Girl" was discovered 268 feet under the ice?


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki​
> _*Ice layering: 145,000*
> 
> 
> 
> A section of an ice core with clearly defined annual layers.
> 
> Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing.
> 
> Annual differences in temperature and irradiation cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice, much like tree rings. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing upon close inspection.
> 
> Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an Earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an absurdly high average of ten layers per year, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young Earth creationists.[20]
> 
> Nevertheless, the age of the Earth identified by these means is *160,000 years* (±15,000 years), which makes it excruciatingly unlikely that the ice is anything less than 145,000 years. _​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if something was buried 75 yrs ago how many ice layers would there be???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you wouldnt
> 
> 
> ice llayers mean nothing
> 
> 
> The lost squadron - creation.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the don't show the snow that accumulated over a year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOPE,, and if you read the article it will show the planes were buried about 75 yrs ago and had hundreds if not thousands of layers and was several hundred feet deep
Click to expand...

We don't know how many layers there were. The people who recovered the plane didn't give a crap about counting the number of ice layers.   We also don't know how thick each layer was.


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki​
> _*Ice layering: 145,000*
> 
> 
> 
> A section of an ice core with clearly defined annual layers.
> 
> Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing.
> 
> Annual differences in temperature and irradiation cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice, much like tree rings. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing upon close inspection.
> 
> Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an Earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an absurdly high average of ten layers per year, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young Earth creationists.[20]
> 
> Nevertheless, the age of the Earth identified by these means is *160,000 years* (±15,000 years), which makes it excruciatingly unlikely that the ice is anything less than 145,000 years. _​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if something was buried 75 yrs ago how many ice layers would there be???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you wouldnt
> 
> 
> ice llayers mean nothing
> 
> 
> The lost squadron - creation.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance, falsehoods and misrepresentations brought to you by the charlatans at one of the most notoriously inept fundamentalist ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have a link to any article the explains how "Glacier Girl" was discovered to be 268 feet under the ice?
Click to expand...

do you??


----------



## Wyatt earp

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence for God.  Science backs up the Bible regarding porn use.
> 
> "The Bible tells us, in 1 Corinthians 6:18, that sexual sin has negative physical consequences:
> 
> _Escape from sexual immorality. Every sin that a man commits is outside the body. But he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. (MEV)_
> 
> Now, science has confirmed what Gods word has established.
> 
> Regardless of the type of sexual sinpremarital sex, adultery, or viewing pornographyit alters how the human brain functions. Indulged in repeatedly, ones conscience is seared, a physical change in the brain that numbs one to the guilt and conviction of his or her wrongdoing.
> 
> *MORE POWERFUL THAN MORPHINE*
> 
> The producers of the Conquer Seriesa cinematic DVD series that helps men break free from pornography note that when porn is viewed, powerful hormones are released, including:
> 
> 
> oxytocincalled the love hormone, it is typically released when one is hugged or kissed, regulating social interactions, sexual reproduction, and human bonding.
> vasopressinused as medication, it numbs pain.
> This concoction of hormones rewires the brain, giving it the wrong material, luring one deeper into a prison of his or her own making. Its intoxicating, intended to bring loved ones closer and promote mental healing, but instead having the opposite effect and confusing the mind.
> 
> Conquer Series expert contributor Heart to Heart Counseling Center Executive Director Dr. Doug Weiss said:
> 
> _When [you] have a sexual experience, your brains makes these opiates which [are] four times stronger than morphine. Boom! It hits your brain, your brain lights up like a Christmas tree. This is the highest chemical reward your brain gets for anything. Thats why a lot of guys get in trouble, even in ministry. They dont know their brain is defective._
> 
> This way, sexual sin takes a profound toll on the brain, and the rest of the body. The sinner knows watching porn is a shameful act that must be kept secret, yet each time one views it, he or she trusts it more as a result of the pairing and deep mental bond forged by the hormones."
> 
> TruNews with Rick Wiles, Real News, Latest News, Christian News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An Introduction to Biblical Nonsense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People get addicted on porn like drugs.  That is not nonsense.  It sounds you're addicted to nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the other hand, you're addicted to sidestepping and deflection when direct refutation is presented to biblical "science" claims.
> 
> Absurdities of biblical "science" claims are easily refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the most prescribed medicine?  It's pain relief meds and people are wanting the strongest, getting addicted and dying for it.
> 
> Why do we watch porn for?  Pleasure and prurient interest.
> 
> The above chemicals are good in moderation.  _*What argument do you have when they are in excess and not in moderation, i.e. causing one to head towards addiction?*_
> 
> I'm only telling it like it is -- TRUTH.  Your Satan filter has made you see "sidestepping and deflection" and think you have "direct refutation" when you are the one who is WRONG.  Like I have been saying atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.  Otherwise, you would be presenting better arguments by using the scientific method.  None of your theories are observable, testable nor falsifiable while science backs up the Bible.
> 
> You won't be able to answer my question, when I just presented more evidence for the Bible and how science backs it up.  This is ancient text we found and verified and it knows about stuff people do on the internet today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, your appeals to Satan and other ancient fears and superstitious nonsense are yours to resolve.
> 
> The facts are, biological evolution, science, medicine... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars. Further, we actually have repeatable results that confirm the reliability of the scientific method, Your loathing for science, for reason and rationality while living your miserable existence in trembling fear of angry gods is truly pitiable. When it comes to ancient tales and fables, which are demonstrably wrong, the ranting from the hyper-religious   devolve quickly into screeching tirades.
> 
> For all your screeching about “bible science”, it’s obvious you can’t provide a single, specific “scientific fact” from any of the various bibles.
Click to expand...



keep on telling yourself that holly.....................












The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) In contrast, many ancient myths describe the universe, not as being created, but as being organized from existing chaos. The Babylonians believed that the gods that gave birth to the universe came from two oceans. Other legends say that the universe came from a giant egg.


The universe is governed day-to-day by rational natural laws, not by the whims of deities. (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25) Myths from around the world teach that humans are helpless before the unpredictable and sometimes merciless acts of the gods.


The earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7) Many ancient peoples believed that the world was a flat disk supported by a giant or an animal, such as a buffalo or a turtle.


Rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6) The ancient Greeks thought that rivers were fed by underground ocean water, and this idea persisted into the 18th century.


The mountains rise and fall, and today’s mountains were once under the ocean. (Psalm 104:6, 8) In contrast, several myths say that the mountains were created in their current form by the gods.


Sanitary practices protect health. The Law given to the nation of Israel included regulations for washing after touching a dead body, quarantining those with infectious disease, and disposing of human waste safely. (Leviticus 11:28; 13:1-5; Deuteronomy 23:13) By contrast, one of the Egyptian remedies in use when these commands were given called for applying to an open wound a mixture that included human excrement.


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> if something was buried 75 yrs ago how many ice layers would there be???
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you wouldnt
> 
> 
> ice llayers mean nothing
> 
> 
> The lost squadron - creation.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the don't show the snow that accumulated over a year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOPE,, and if you read the article it will show the planes were buried about 75 yrs ago and had hundreds if not thousands of layers and was several hundred feet deep
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't know how many layers there were. The people who recovered the plane didn't give a crap about counting the number of ice layers.   We also don't know how thick each layer was.
Click to expand...



the pictures and video speak for themselves,,,its you that chooses to remain ignorant of them


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki​
> _*Ice layering: 145,000*
> 
> 
> 
> A section of an ice core with clearly defined annual layers.
> 
> Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing.
> 
> Annual differences in temperature and irradiation cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice, much like tree rings. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing upon close inspection.
> 
> Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an Earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an absurdly high average of ten layers per year, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young Earth creationists.[20]
> 
> Nevertheless, the age of the Earth identified by these means is *160,000 years* (±15,000 years), which makes it excruciatingly unlikely that the ice is anything less than 145,000 years. _​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if something was buried 75 yrs ago how many ice layers would there be???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you wouldnt
> 
> 
> ice llayers mean nothing
> 
> 
> The lost squadron - creation.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the don't show the snow that accumulated over a year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOPE,, and if you read the article it will show the planes were buried about 75 yrs ago and had hundreds if not thousands of layers and was several hundred feet deep
Click to expand...


How would the charlatans at your fundie Christian ministry know how many layers of ice had accumulated?

Why don’t you present the data, ice cores, published papers they presented. 

Thanks.


----------



## progressive hunter

Hollie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> if something was buried 75 yrs ago how many ice layers would there be???
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you wouldnt
> 
> 
> ice llayers mean nothing
> 
> 
> The lost squadron - creation.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the don't show the snow that accumulated over a year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOPE,, and if you read the article it will show the planes were buried about 75 yrs ago and had hundreds if not thousands of layers and was several hundred feet deep
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would the charlatans at your fundie Christian ministry know how many layers of ice had accumulated?
> 
> Why don’t you present the data, ice cores, published papers they presented.
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...




sorry after your insults I would never try and debate a dumbcunt like you


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bear513 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> An Introduction to Biblical Nonsense
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People get addicted on porn like drugs.  That is not nonsense.  It sounds you're addicted to nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the other hand, you're addicted to sidestepping and deflection when direct refutation is presented to biblical "science" claims.
> 
> Absurdities of biblical "science" claims are easily refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the most prescribed medicine?  It's pain relief meds and people are wanting the strongest, getting addicted and dying for it.
> 
> Why do we watch porn for?  Pleasure and prurient interest.
> 
> The above chemicals are good in moderation.  _*What argument do you have when they are in excess and not in moderation, i.e. causing one to head towards addiction?*_
> 
> I'm only telling it like it is -- TRUTH.  Your Satan filter has made you see "sidestepping and deflection" and think you have "direct refutation" when you are the one who is WRONG.  Like I have been saying atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.  Otherwise, you would be presenting better arguments by using the scientific method.  None of your theories are observable, testable nor falsifiable while science backs up the Bible.
> 
> You won't be able to answer my question, when I just presented more evidence for the Bible and how science backs it up.  This is ancient text we found and verified and it knows about stuff people do on the internet today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, your appeals to Satan and other ancient fears and superstitious nonsense are yours to resolve.
> 
> The facts are, biological evolution, science, medicine... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars. Further, we actually have repeatable results that confirm the reliability of the scientific method, Your loathing for science, for reason and rationality while living your miserable existence in trembling fear of angry gods is truly pitiable. When it comes to ancient tales and fables, which are demonstrably wrong, the ranting from the hyper-religious   devolve quickly into screeching tirades.
> 
> For all your screeching about “bible science”, it’s obvious you can’t provide a single, specific “scientific fact” from any of the various bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> keep on telling yourself that holly.....................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) In contrast, many ancient myths describe the universe, not as being created, but as being organized from existing chaos. The Babylonians believed that the gods that gave birth to the universe came from two oceans. Other legends say that the universe came from a giant egg.
> 
> 
> The universe is governed day-to-day by rational natural laws, not by the whims of deities. (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25) Myths from around the world teach that humans are helpless before the unpredictable and sometimes merciless acts of the gods.
> 
> 
> The earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7) Many ancient peoples believed that the world was a flat disk supported by a giant or an animal, such as a buffalo or a turtle.
> 
> 
> Rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6) The ancient Greeks thought that rivers were fed by underground ocean water, and this idea persisted into the 18th century.
> 
> 
> The mountains rise and fall, and today’s mountains were once under the ocean. (Psalm 104:6, 8) In contrast, several myths say that the mountains were created in their current form by the gods.
> 
> 
> Sanitary practices protect health. The Law given to the nation of Israel included regulations for washing after touching a dead body, quarantining those with infectious disease, and disposing of human waste safely. (Leviticus 11:28; 13:1-5; Deuteronomy 23:13) By contrast, one of the Egyptian remedies in use when these commands were given called for applying to an open wound a mixture that included human excrement.
Click to expand...

Haha,yet another charlatan,retro-fitting cherry picked nonsense after the fact. What of all the biblical nonsense proven to be bullshit?

And where is all the knowledge and successful predictions from this batch of magical bullshit? Where were the biblical physicists, describingthe big bang, in the year 1500? Why is it you charlatans have to wait until this stuff os discovered? Why aren't you using the Bible to discover it?

Funny how the Bible allegedly teaches us about all this...and yet every one of you frauds had to wait for hard working scientists to dedicate their lives to extracting this knowledge, before any of you could wrap it in the veneer of your magical bullshit....


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> People get addicted on porn like drugs.  That is not nonsense.  It sounds you're addicted to nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, you're addicted to sidestepping and deflection when direct refutation is presented to biblical "science" claims.
> 
> Absurdities of biblical "science" claims are easily refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the most prescribed medicine?  It's pain relief meds and people are wanting the strongest, getting addicted and dying for it.
> 
> Why do we watch porn for?  Pleasure and prurient interest.
> 
> The above chemicals are good in moderation.  _*What argument do you have when they are in excess and not in moderation, i.e. causing one to head towards addiction?*_
> 
> I'm only telling it like it is -- TRUTH.  Your Satan filter has made you see "sidestepping and deflection" and think you have "direct refutation" when you are the one who is WRONG.  Like I have been saying atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.  Otherwise, you would be presenting better arguments by using the scientific method.  None of your theories are observable, testable nor falsifiable while science backs up the Bible.
> 
> You won't be able to answer my question, when I just presented more evidence for the Bible and how science backs it up.  This is ancient text we found and verified and it knows about stuff people do on the internet today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, your appeals to Satan and other ancient fears and superstitious nonsense are yours to resolve.
> 
> The facts are, biological evolution, science, medicine... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars. Further, we actually have repeatable results that confirm the reliability of the scientific method, Your loathing for science, for reason and rationality while living your miserable existence in trembling fear of angry gods is truly pitiable. When it comes to ancient tales and fables, which are demonstrably wrong, the ranting from the hyper-religious   devolve quickly into screeching tirades.
> 
> For all your screeching about “bible science”, it’s obvious you can’t provide a single, specific “scientific fact” from any of the various bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> keep on telling yourself that holly.....................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) In contrast, many ancient myths describe the universe, not as being created, but as being organized from existing chaos. The Babylonians believed that the gods that gave birth to the universe came from two oceans. Other legends say that the universe came from a giant egg.
> 
> 
> The universe is governed day-to-day by rational natural laws, not by the whims of deities. (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25) Myths from around the world teach that humans are helpless before the unpredictable and sometimes merciless acts of the gods.
> 
> 
> The earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7) Many ancient peoples believed that the world was a flat disk supported by a giant or an animal, such as a buffalo or a turtle.
> 
> 
> Rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6) The ancient Greeks thought that rivers were fed by underground ocean water, and this idea persisted into the 18th century.
> 
> 
> The mountains rise and fall, and today’s mountains were once under the ocean. (Psalm 104:6, 8) In contrast, several myths say that the mountains were created in their current form by the gods.
> 
> 
> Sanitary practices protect health. The Law given to the nation of Israel included regulations for washing after touching a dead body, quarantining those with infectious disease, and disposing of human waste safely. (Leviticus 11:28; 13:1-5; Deuteronomy 23:13) By contrast, one of the Egyptian remedies in use when these commands were given called for applying to an open wound a mixture that included human excrement.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha,yet another charlatan,retro-fotting cherry picked nonaense after the fact. What of a the biblical nonsense proven to be bullshit?
> 
> And where is all the knowledge and successful predictions from this batch of magical bullshit? Where were the biblical physicists, describingthe big bang, in the year 1500?
> 
> Funny how the Bible allegedly teaches us about all this...and yetevery one of you frauds had to wait for hard working scientists to dedicate their lives to extracting this knowledge, before any of you could wrap it in the veneer of your magical bullshit....
Click to expand...

troll


----------



## Hollie

bear513 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> An Introduction to Biblical Nonsense
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People get addicted on porn like drugs.  That is not nonsense.  It sounds you're addicted to nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the other hand, you're addicted to sidestepping and deflection when direct refutation is presented to biblical "science" claims.
> 
> Absurdities of biblical "science" claims are easily refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the most prescribed medicine?  It's pain relief meds and people are wanting the strongest, getting addicted and dying for it.
> 
> Why do we watch porn for?  Pleasure and prurient interest.
> 
> The above chemicals are good in moderation.  _*What argument do you have when they are in excess and not in moderation, i.e. causing one to head towards addiction?*_
> 
> I'm only telling it like it is -- TRUTH.  Your Satan filter has made you see "sidestepping and deflection" and think you have "direct refutation" when you are the one who is WRONG.  Like I have been saying atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.  Otherwise, you would be presenting better arguments by using the scientific method.  None of your theories are observable, testable nor falsifiable while science backs up the Bible.
> 
> You won't be able to answer my question, when I just presented more evidence for the Bible and how science backs it up.  This is ancient text we found and verified and it knows about stuff people do on the internet today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, your appeals to Satan and other ancient fears and superstitious nonsense are yours to resolve.
> 
> The facts are, biological evolution, science, medicine... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars. Further, we actually have repeatable results that confirm the reliability of the scientific method, Your loathing for science, for reason and rationality while living your miserable existence in trembling fear of angry gods is truly pitiable. When it comes to ancient tales and fables, which are demonstrably wrong, the ranting from the hyper-religious   devolve quickly into screeching tirades.
> 
> For all your screeching about “bible science”, it’s obvious you can’t provide a single, specific “scientific fact” from any of the various bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> keep on telling yourself that holly.....................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) In contrast, many ancient myths describe the universe, not as being created, but as being organized from existing chaos. The Babylonians believed that the gods that gave birth to the universe came from two oceans. Other legends say that the universe came from a giant egg.
> 
> 
> The universe is governed day-to-day by rational natural laws, not by the whims of deities. (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25) Myths from around the world teach that humans are helpless before the unpredictable and sometimes merciless acts of the gods.
> 
> 
> The earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7) Many ancient peoples believed that the world was a flat disk supported by a giant or an animal, such as a buffalo or a turtle.
> 
> 
> Rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6) The ancient Greeks thought that rivers were fed by underground ocean water, and this idea persisted into the 18th century.
> 
> 
> The mountains rise and fall, and today’s mountains were once under the ocean. (Psalm 104:6, 8) In contrast, several myths say that the mountains were created in their current form by the gods.
> 
> 
> Sanitary practices protect health. The Law given to the nation of Israel included regulations for washing after touching a dead body, quarantining those with infectious disease, and disposing of human waste safely. (Leviticus 11:28; 13:1-5; Deuteronomy 23:13) By contrast, one of the Egyptian remedies in use when these commands were given called for applying to an open wound a mixture that included human excrement.
Click to expand...


As usual, nothing in that long cut and paste speaks to anything but vague generalities.


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> if something was buried 75 yrs ago how many ice layers would there be???
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you wouldnt
> 
> 
> ice llayers mean nothing
> 
> 
> The lost squadron - creation.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance, falsehoods and misrepresentations brought to you by the charlatans at one of the most notoriously inept fundamentalist ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have a link to any article the explains how "Glacier Girl" was discovered to be 268 feet under the ice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do you??
Click to expand...


The answer is that is snows more near the coast of Greenland where the plane crashed than were the ice cores were drilled, which is near the center of the continent.  Near the coast Greenland gets about 1.5 meters of snow per year.  75 x 1.5 x 3.28 = 369 feet.  Some compression undoubtedly occurred.

plucking creationism's low-hanging fruit: Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron
_
* Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron *


 This is my first post here and I want to get into the meat of an argument I've had with a creationist here in Busan.  Still, some background is probably necessary._

_ My creationist coworker sent me a long (20 page) discussion of why secular science is wrong about the age of the Earth.  That was the first article he gave me.  He has now sent me four or five and all of a similar length and breadth.  There are two problems with much of the stuff he sends me.  Well, two problems that affect my ability to respond._

_ First, although he gives an enormous number of references and links, he has admitted that he has not read all of them.  To my uncertain knowledge, of the 39 bullet point examples he gives showing that modern science's aging techniques are wrong, he has read fewer than 10% himself.  I believe this to true for all the references and mined quotes he offers.  I feel that with his name on the article, all errors affect his credibility._
_ Second, he occasionally covers material that I don't understand well enough to critique and I don't think he understands well enough to use as a defense.  For example, I know the absolute basics of radiocarbon dating and nothing of the practicalities.  How does one collect a sample and ensure it is not contaminated?  I don't know.  For me, this is reason enough to read the articles with interest but not to post them with my stamp of approval.  I'm not asking for expertise - that would be hypocritical- but when I offer a link, I do so only if I understand the concepts._

_ The article I'm starting on today covered many aspects of how to date the Earth or what is wrong with dating methods that give answers greater than 6-10,000 years.  This article had many different articles and links in it and I am looking at one of these titled, "Ice Core Sample Dating/ The Lost Squadron".  The original was by Carl Wieland and my coworker appears to have copied it in its entirety from creation.com/the-lost-squadron although the article contains a hyperlink to Answers in Genesis.  I don't think there are copyright issues as he has given links and this means I can share a link the original article._

_ In brief, the Wieland's article attempts to show why ice cores taken from Greenland glaciers cannot show ages of tens of thousands of years.  That material would be rather dry, and is in fact untrue, so he uses the dramatic true story of a fleet of US fighters and bombers that crash landed on the island as a disguise or hook.  Indeed, of the fifteen or so paragraphs, ten describe the fate of the aircraft and only a few actually discuss ice cores.  One of the key excerpts:_
_ ...the 3000-metre-long ice core [brought up by the joint European Greenland Ice-core Project (GRIP) in Greenland in 1990–1992] would only represent some 2,000 years of accumulation. _
_ The article is amazing as a tutorial in how to lie by omission.  One would imagine that the ice cores were taken very near the crash-site. but the two are in fact hundreds of kilometres apart and in what I would describe as different climatic areas.  The planes are near the coast where they receive ocean-effect precipitation (Wikipedia - short version: lots), while the ice core site is more than a hundred kilometres inland.  Here is all the location information given:_
_ Regarding the planes: "Realising that their only hope was to crash-land on the icy wastes of Greenland’s east coast, they desperately searched till they found a break in the cloud cover."_
_ And here is everything the article has to say about the location of the ice cores: " "_

_ On maps, the two locations are clearly distant. Further, one is quite distant inland, while the other is on the coast. Maps (Glacier Girl, Eismitte):_

_ 









 A possibly more accurate map of the ice core site is here._

_ Why is it important that one site is on the coast and the other more than a hundred kilometres inland?  Because of something called Ocean Effect Snow.  This is also known as Lake effect snow and simply describes the phenomenon of greater snowfall occurring close to unfrozen bodies of water than distant from water.  Greenland's coast around the crash site received about 1.5 metres of snow per year but that does not mean that inland site would get a similar amount._

_ How much snow does the Eismitte get?_
_ Between 1910 and '28, it received less than half a metre a year._
_ 




 More recently (and from a different, but nearby location):






_

_ Both show average snowfalls of less than half a metre - the average in the image is 0.24- metres._
_ ---_
_ Added later: True Size Map shows the size of countries without distortion brought on by using a Mercator projection map.  Because Greenland is so far north, it looks huge.  In True Size Map, I pulled it down to the continental USA and it is a lot narrower there - but still longer North-South than the USA so clearly saying the two events are in Greenland cannot mean they must have similar weather conditions_
_ 



 ---_

_ I believe I have shown why Weiland's article cannot be trusted and is probably deliberately dishonest.  Is there more to the story?  Yes, thanks for asking._

_ From Weiland's article:_
_ In fact, ice cores in Greenland are used for dating, based on the belief that layers containing varying isotope ratios were laid down, somewhat like the rings of a tree, over many tens of thousands of years. This is the only description of how secular scientists (should those two words be in quotes?) determine the age of segments of the ice core.  There is no attempt to show why varying isotope ratios should be incorrect either.  Left out of Weiland's work is how ice cores can be calibrated by looking for volcanic ash from known eruptions._

_ To summarize, not only are Weiland's conclusions wrong, they show a strange combination of in-depth research on certain areas and no research on others.  The highest quality of research is on matters that do not relate to the controversy being discussed.  For example, we learn what device is used, and what it's parameters are, for melting the ice to reach the planes, but no details on where the planes were found compared to the location of ice core drilling site.  Further, they the two locations are suggested to be near one another -note the quote about 3000 metres of ice equalling 2000 years accumulation as if those 3000 metres were in the same climate zone._​


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your question.
> 
> 
> 
> you wouldnt
> 
> 
> ice llayers mean nothing
> 
> 
> The lost squadron - creation.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the don't show the snow that accumulated over a year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOPE,, and if you read the article it will show the planes were buried about 75 yrs ago and had hundreds if not thousands of layers and was several hundred feet deep
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would the charlatans at your fundie Christian ministry know how many layers of ice had accumulated?
> 
> Why don’t you present the data, ice cores, published papers they presented.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry after your insults I would never try and debate a dumbcunt like you
Click to expand...


How, umm, Christian of you.


----------



## progressive hunter

Hollie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> you wouldnt
> 
> 
> ice llayers mean nothing
> 
> 
> The lost squadron - creation.com
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the don't show the snow that accumulated over a year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOPE,, and if you read the article it will show the planes were buried about 75 yrs ago and had hundreds if not thousands of layers and was several hundred feet deep
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would the charlatans at your fundie Christian ministry know how many layers of ice had accumulated?
> 
> Why don’t you present the data, ice cores, published papers they presented.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry after your insults I would never try and debate a dumbcunt like you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How, umm, Christian of you.
Click to expand...

when did I claim to be christian???


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your question.
> 
> 
> 
> you wouldnt
> 
> 
> ice llayers mean nothing
> 
> 
> The lost squadron - creation.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance, falsehoods and misrepresentations brought to you by the charlatans at one of the most notoriously inept fundamentalist ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have a link to any article the explains how "Glacier Girl" was discovered to be 268 feet under the ice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer is that is snows more near the coast of Greenland where the plane crashed than were the ice cores were drilled, which is near the center of the continent.  Near the coast Greenland gets about 1.5 meters of snow per year.  75 x 1.5 x 3.28 = 369 feet.  Some compression undoubtedly occurred.
> 
> plucking creationism's low-hanging fruit: Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron
> _
> * Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron *
> 
> 
> This is my first post here and I want to get into the meat of an argument I've had with a creationist here in Busan.  Still, some background is probably necessary._
> 
> _ My creationist coworker sent me a long (20 page) discussion of why secular science is wrong about the age of the Earth.  That was the first article he gave me.  He has now sent me four or five and all of a similar length and breadth.  There are two problems with much of the stuff he sends me.  Well, two problems that affect my ability to respond._
> 
> _ First, although he gives an enormous number of references and links, he has admitted that he has not read all of them.  To my uncertain knowledge, of the 39 bullet point examples he gives showing that modern science's aging techniques are wrong, he has read fewer than 10% himself.  I believe this to true for all the references and mined quotes he offers.  I feel that with his name on the article, all errors affect his credibility.
> Second, he occasionally covers material that I don't understand well enough to critique and I don't think he understands well enough to use as a defense.  For example, I know the absolute basics of radiocarbon dating and nothing of the practicalities.  How does one collect a sample and ensure it is not contaminated?  I don't know.  For me, this is reason enough to read the articles with interest but not to post them with my stamp of approval.  I'm not asking for expertise - that would be hypocritical- but when I offer a link, I do so only if I understand the concepts._
> 
> _ The article I'm starting on today covered many aspects of how to date the Earth or what is wrong with dating methods that give answers greater than 6-10,000 years.  This article had many different articles and links in it and I am looking at one of these titled, "Ice Core Sample Dating/ The Lost Squadron".  The original was by Carl Wieland and my coworker appears to have copied it in its entirety from creation.com/the-lost-squadron although the article contains a hyperlink to Answers in Genesis.  I don't think there are copyright issues as he has given links and this means I can share a link the original article._
> 
> _ In brief, the Wieland's article attempts to show why ice cores taken from Greenland glaciers cannot show ages of tens of thousands of years.  That material would be rather dry, and is in fact untrue, so he uses the dramatic true story of a fleet of US fighters and bombers that crash landed on the island as a disguise or hook.  Indeed, of the fifteen or so paragraphs, ten describe the fate of the aircraft and only a few actually discuss ice cores.  One of the key excerpts:
> ...the 3000-metre-long ice core [brought up by the joint European Greenland Ice-core Project (GRIP) in Greenland in 1990–1992] would only represent some 2,000 years of accumulation.
> The article is amazing as a tutorial in how to lie by omission.  One would imagine that the ice cores were taken very near the crash-site. but the two are in fact hundreds of kilometres apart and in what I would describe as different climatic areas.  The planes are near the coast where they receive ocean-effect precipitation (Wikipedia - short version: lots), while the ice core site is more than a hundred kilometres inland.  Here is all the location information given:
> Regarding the planes: "Realising that their only hope was to crash-land on the icy wastes of Greenland’s east coast, they desperately searched till they found a break in the cloud cover."
> And here is everything the article has to say about the location of the ice cores: " "_
> 
> _ On maps, the two locations are clearly distant. Further, one is quite distant inland, while the other is on the coast. Maps (Glacier Girl, Eismitte):_
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A possibly more accurate map of the ice core site is here._
> 
> _ Why is it important that one site is on the coast and the other more than a hundred kilometres inland?  Because of something called Ocean Effect Snow.  This is also known as Lake effect snow and simply describes the phenomenon of greater snowfall occurring close to unfrozen bodies of water than distant from water.  Greenland's coast around the crash site received about 1.5 metres of snow per year but that does not mean that inland site would get a similar amount._
> 
> _ How much snow does the Eismitte get?
> Between 1910 and '28, it received less than half a metre a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More recently (and from a different, but nearby location):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> _ Both show average snowfalls of less than half a metre - the average in the image is 0.24- metres.
> ---
> Added later: True Size Map shows the size of countries without distortion brought on by using a Mercator projection map.  Because Greenland is so far north, it looks huge.  In True Size Map, I pulled it down to the continental USA and it is a lot narrower there - but still longer North-South than the USA so clearly saying the two events are in Greenland cannot mean they must have similar weather conditions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---_
> 
> _ I believe I have shown why Weiland's article cannot be trusted and is probably deliberately dishonest.  Is there more to the story?  Yes, thanks for asking._
> 
> _ From Weiland's article:
> In fact, ice cores in Greenland are used for dating, based on the belief that layers containing varying isotope ratios were laid down, somewhat like the rings of a tree, over many tens of thousands of years. This is the only description of how secular scientists (should those two words be in quotes?) determine the age of segments of the ice core.  There is no attempt to show why varying isotope ratios should be incorrect either.  Left out of Weiland's work is how ice cores can be calibrated by looking for volcanic ash from known eruptions._
> 
> _ To summarize, not only are Weiland's conclusions wrong, they show a strange combination of in-depth research on certain areas and no research on others.  The highest quality of research is on matters that do not relate to the controversy being discussed.  For example, we learn what device is used, and what it's parameters are, for melting the ice to reach the planes, but no details on where the planes were found compared to the location of ice core drilling site.  Further, they the two locations are suggested to be near one another -note the quote about 3000 metres of ice equalling 2000 years accumulation as if those 3000 metres were in the same climate zone._​
Click to expand...

already seen this, and all it shows is that ice layers are subjective and unreliable for accurate dating on both sides


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the don't show the snow that accumulated over a year?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOPE,, and if you read the article it will show the planes were buried about 75 yrs ago and had hundreds if not thousands of layers and was several hundred feet deep
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would the charlatans at your fundie Christian ministry know how many layers of ice had accumulated?
> 
> Why don’t you present the data, ice cores, published papers they presented.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry after your insults I would never try and debate a dumbcunt like you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How, umm, Christian of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when did I claim to be christian???
Click to expand...


So, I guess you’re not going present any data, published documents or results of testing done by the charlatans at your Christian fundie ministry to support a single element of silly link you posted. 

Well done.


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> you wouldnt
> 
> 
> ice llayers mean nothing
> 
> 
> The lost squadron - creation.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance, falsehoods and misrepresentations brought to you by the charlatans at one of the most notoriously inept fundamentalist ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have a link to any article the explains how "Glacier Girl" was discovered to be 268 feet under the ice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer is that is snows more near the coast of Greenland where the plane crashed than were the ice cores were drilled, which is near the center of the continent.  Near the coast Greenland gets about 1.5 meters of snow per year.  75 x 1.5 x 3.28 = 369 feet.  Some compression undoubtedly occurred.
> 
> plucking creationism's low-hanging fruit: Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron
> _
> * Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron *
> 
> 
> This is my first post here and I want to get into the meat of an argument I've had with a creationist here in Busan.  Still, some background is probably necessary._
> 
> _ My creationist coworker sent me a long (20 page) discussion of why secular science is wrong about the age of the Earth.  That was the first article he gave me.  He has now sent me four or five and all of a similar length and breadth.  There are two problems with much of the stuff he sends me.  Well, two problems that affect my ability to respond._
> 
> _ First, although he gives an enormous number of references and links, he has admitted that he has not read all of them.  To my uncertain knowledge, of the 39 bullet point examples he gives showing that modern science's aging techniques are wrong, he has read fewer than 10% himself.  I believe this to true for all the references and mined quotes he offers.  I feel that with his name on the article, all errors affect his credibility.
> Second, he occasionally covers material that I don't understand well enough to critique and I don't think he understands well enough to use as a defense.  For example, I know the absolute basics of radiocarbon dating and nothing of the practicalities.  How does one collect a sample and ensure it is not contaminated?  I don't know.  For me, this is reason enough to read the articles with interest but not to post them with my stamp of approval.  I'm not asking for expertise - that would be hypocritical- but when I offer a link, I do so only if I understand the concepts._
> 
> _ The article I'm starting on today covered many aspects of how to date the Earth or what is wrong with dating methods that give answers greater than 6-10,000 years.  This article had many different articles and links in it and I am looking at one of these titled, "Ice Core Sample Dating/ The Lost Squadron".  The original was by Carl Wieland and my coworker appears to have copied it in its entirety from creation.com/the-lost-squadron although the article contains a hyperlink to Answers in Genesis.  I don't think there are copyright issues as he has given links and this means I can share a link the original article._
> 
> _ In brief, the Wieland's article attempts to show why ice cores taken from Greenland glaciers cannot show ages of tens of thousands of years.  That material would be rather dry, and is in fact untrue, so he uses the dramatic true story of a fleet of US fighters and bombers that crash landed on the island as a disguise or hook.  Indeed, of the fifteen or so paragraphs, ten describe the fate of the aircraft and only a few actually discuss ice cores.  One of the key excerpts:
> ...the 3000-metre-long ice core [brought up by the joint European Greenland Ice-core Project (GRIP) in Greenland in 1990–1992] would only represent some 2,000 years of accumulation.
> The article is amazing as a tutorial in how to lie by omission.  One would imagine that the ice cores were taken very near the crash-site. but the two are in fact hundreds of kilometres apart and in what I would describe as different climatic areas.  The planes are near the coast where they receive ocean-effect precipitation (Wikipedia - short version: lots), while the ice core site is more than a hundred kilometres inland.  Here is all the location information given:
> Regarding the planes: "Realising that their only hope was to crash-land on the icy wastes of Greenland’s east coast, they desperately searched till they found a break in the cloud cover."
> And here is everything the article has to say about the location of the ice cores: " "_
> 
> _ On maps, the two locations are clearly distant. Further, one is quite distant inland, while the other is on the coast. Maps (Glacier Girl, Eismitte):_
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A possibly more accurate map of the ice core site is here._
> 
> _ Why is it important that one site is on the coast and the other more than a hundred kilometres inland?  Because of something called Ocean Effect Snow.  This is also known as Lake effect snow and simply describes the phenomenon of greater snowfall occurring close to unfrozen bodies of water than distant from water.  Greenland's coast around the crash site received about 1.5 metres of snow per year but that does not mean that inland site would get a similar amount._
> 
> _ How much snow does the Eismitte get?
> Between 1910 and '28, it received less than half a metre a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More recently (and from a different, but nearby location):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> _ Both show average snowfalls of less than half a metre - the average in the image is 0.24- metres.
> ---
> Added later: True Size Map shows the size of countries without distortion brought on by using a Mercator projection map.  Because Greenland is so far north, it looks huge.  In True Size Map, I pulled it down to the continental USA and it is a lot narrower there - but still longer North-South than the USA so clearly saying the two events are in Greenland cannot mean they must have similar weather conditions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---_
> 
> _ I believe I have shown why Weiland's article cannot be trusted and is probably deliberately dishonest.  Is there more to the story?  Yes, thanks for asking._
> 
> _ From Weiland's article:
> In fact, ice cores in Greenland are used for dating, based on the belief that layers containing varying isotope ratios were laid down, somewhat like the rings of a tree, over many tens of thousands of years. This is the only description of how secular scientists (should those two words be in quotes?) determine the age of segments of the ice core.  There is no attempt to show why varying isotope ratios should be incorrect either.  Left out of Weiland's work is how ice cores can be calibrated by looking for volcanic ash from known eruptions._
> 
> _ To summarize, not only are Weiland's conclusions wrong, they show a strange combination of in-depth research on certain areas and no research on others.  The highest quality of research is on matters that do not relate to the controversy being discussed.  For example, we learn what device is used, and what it's parameters are, for melting the ice to reach the planes, but no details on where the planes were found compared to the location of ice core drilling site.  Further, they the two locations are suggested to be near one another -note the quote about 3000 metres of ice equalling 2000 years accumulation as if those 3000 metres were in the same climate zone._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> already seen this, and all it shows is that ice layers are subjective and unreliable for accurate dating on both sides
Click to expand...


Another false, ignorant, unsupported claim.


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> you wouldnt
> 
> 
> ice llayers mean nothing
> 
> 
> The lost squadron - creation.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance, falsehoods and misrepresentations brought to you by the charlatans at one of the most notoriously inept fundamentalist ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have a link to any article the explains how "Glacier Girl" was discovered to be 268 feet under the ice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer is that is snows more near the coast of Greenland where the plane crashed than were the ice cores were drilled, which is near the center of the continent.  Near the coast Greenland gets about 1.5 meters of snow per year.  75 x 1.5 x 3.28 = 369 feet.  Some compression undoubtedly occurred.
> 
> plucking creationism's low-hanging fruit: Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron
> _
> * Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron *
> 
> 
> This is my first post here and I want to get into the meat of an argument I've had with a creationist here in Busan.  Still, some background is probably necessary._
> 
> _ My creationist coworker sent me a long (20 page) discussion of why secular science is wrong about the age of the Earth.  That was the first article he gave me.  He has now sent me four or five and all of a similar length and breadth.  There are two problems with much of the stuff he sends me.  Well, two problems that affect my ability to respond._
> 
> _ First, although he gives an enormous number of references and links, he has admitted that he has not read all of them.  To my uncertain knowledge, of the 39 bullet point examples he gives showing that modern science's aging techniques are wrong, he has read fewer than 10% himself.  I believe this to true for all the references and mined quotes he offers.  I feel that with his name on the article, all errors affect his credibility.
> Second, he occasionally covers material that I don't understand well enough to critique and I don't think he understands well enough to use as a defense.  For example, I know the absolute basics of radiocarbon dating and nothing of the practicalities.  How does one collect a sample and ensure it is not contaminated?  I don't know.  For me, this is reason enough to read the articles with interest but not to post them with my stamp of approval.  I'm not asking for expertise - that would be hypocritical- but when I offer a link, I do so only if I understand the concepts._
> 
> _ The article I'm starting on today covered many aspects of how to date the Earth or what is wrong with dating methods that give answers greater than 6-10,000 years.  This article had many different articles and links in it and I am looking at one of these titled, "Ice Core Sample Dating/ The Lost Squadron".  The original was by Carl Wieland and my coworker appears to have copied it in its entirety from creation.com/the-lost-squadron although the article contains a hyperlink to Answers in Genesis.  I don't think there are copyright issues as he has given links and this means I can share a link the original article._
> 
> _ In brief, the Wieland's article attempts to show why ice cores taken from Greenland glaciers cannot show ages of tens of thousands of years.  That material would be rather dry, and is in fact untrue, so he uses the dramatic true story of a fleet of US fighters and bombers that crash landed on the island as a disguise or hook.  Indeed, of the fifteen or so paragraphs, ten describe the fate of the aircraft and only a few actually discuss ice cores.  One of the key excerpts:
> ...the 3000-metre-long ice core [brought up by the joint European Greenland Ice-core Project (GRIP) in Greenland in 1990–1992] would only represent some 2,000 years of accumulation.
> The article is amazing as a tutorial in how to lie by omission.  One would imagine that the ice cores were taken very near the crash-site. but the two are in fact hundreds of kilometres apart and in what I would describe as different climatic areas.  The planes are near the coast where they receive ocean-effect precipitation (Wikipedia - short version: lots), while the ice core site is more than a hundred kilometres inland.  Here is all the location information given:
> Regarding the planes: "Realising that their only hope was to crash-land on the icy wastes of Greenland’s east coast, they desperately searched till they found a break in the cloud cover."
> And here is everything the article has to say about the location of the ice cores: " "_
> 
> _ On maps, the two locations are clearly distant. Further, one is quite distant inland, while the other is on the coast. Maps (Glacier Girl, Eismitte):_
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A possibly more accurate map of the ice core site is here._
> 
> _ Why is it important that one site is on the coast and the other more than a hundred kilometres inland?  Because of something called Ocean Effect Snow.  This is also known as Lake effect snow and simply describes the phenomenon of greater snowfall occurring close to unfrozen bodies of water than distant from water.  Greenland's coast around the crash site received about 1.5 metres of snow per year but that does not mean that inland site would get a similar amount._
> 
> _ How much snow does the Eismitte get?
> Between 1910 and '28, it received less than half a metre a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More recently (and from a different, but nearby location):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> _ Both show average snowfalls of less than half a metre - the average in the image is 0.24- metres.
> ---
> Added later: True Size Map shows the size of countries without distortion brought on by using a Mercator projection map.  Because Greenland is so far north, it looks huge.  In True Size Map, I pulled it down to the continental USA and it is a lot narrower there - but still longer North-South than the USA so clearly saying the two events are in Greenland cannot mean they must have similar weather conditions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---_
> 
> _ I believe I have shown why Weiland's article cannot be trusted and is probably deliberately dishonest.  Is there more to the story?  Yes, thanks for asking._
> 
> _ From Weiland's article:
> In fact, ice cores in Greenland are used for dating, based on the belief that layers containing varying isotope ratios were laid down, somewhat like the rings of a tree, over many tens of thousands of years. This is the only description of how secular scientists (should those two words be in quotes?) determine the age of segments of the ice core.  There is no attempt to show why varying isotope ratios should be incorrect either.  Left out of Weiland's work is how ice cores can be calibrated by looking for volcanic ash from known eruptions._
> 
> _ To summarize, not only are Weiland's conclusions wrong, they show a strange combination of in-depth research on certain areas and no research on others.  The highest quality of research is on matters that do not relate to the controversy being discussed.  For example, we learn what device is used, and what it's parameters are, for melting the ice to reach the planes, but no details on where the planes were found compared to the location of ice core drilling site.  Further, they the two locations are suggested to be near one another -note the quote about 3000 metres of ice equalling 2000 years accumulation as if those 3000 metres were in the same climate zone._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> already seen this, and all it shows is that ice layers are subjective and unreliable for accurate dating on both sides
Click to expand...

Wrong.  It shows that the thickness of ice layers varies depending on the amount of snow the place where they are measured receives.

Your "Glacier Girl P38" example does not prove ice layers are invalid as a means of dating.

Now explain how the the earth is only 6000 years old when we have physical evidence in some places of 700,000 annual layers of ice


----------



## bripat9643

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance, falsehoods and misrepresentations brought to you by the charlatans at one of the most notoriously inept fundamentalist ministries.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to any article the explains how "Glacier Girl" was discovered to be 268 feet under the ice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer is that is snows more near the coast of Greenland where the plane crashed than were the ice cores were drilled, which is near the center of the continent.  Near the coast Greenland gets about 1.5 meters of snow per year.  75 x 1.5 x 3.28 = 369 feet.  Some compression undoubtedly occurred.
> 
> plucking creationism's low-hanging fruit: Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron
> _
> * Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron *
> 
> 
> This is my first post here and I want to get into the meat of an argument I've had with a creationist here in Busan.  Still, some background is probably necessary._
> 
> _ My creationist coworker sent me a long (20 page) discussion of why secular science is wrong about the age of the Earth.  That was the first article he gave me.  He has now sent me four or five and all of a similar length and breadth.  There are two problems with much of the stuff he sends me.  Well, two problems that affect my ability to respond._
> 
> _ First, although he gives an enormous number of references and links, he has admitted that he has not read all of them.  To my uncertain knowledge, of the 39 bullet point examples he gives showing that modern science's aging techniques are wrong, he has read fewer than 10% himself.  I believe this to true for all the references and mined quotes he offers.  I feel that with his name on the article, all errors affect his credibility.
> Second, he occasionally covers material that I don't understand well enough to critique and I don't think he understands well enough to use as a defense.  For example, I know the absolute basics of radiocarbon dating and nothing of the practicalities.  How does one collect a sample and ensure it is not contaminated?  I don't know.  For me, this is reason enough to read the articles with interest but not to post them with my stamp of approval.  I'm not asking for expertise - that would be hypocritical- but when I offer a link, I do so only if I understand the concepts._
> 
> _ The article I'm starting on today covered many aspects of how to date the Earth or what is wrong with dating methods that give answers greater than 6-10,000 years.  This article had many different articles and links in it and I am looking at one of these titled, "Ice Core Sample Dating/ The Lost Squadron".  The original was by Carl Wieland and my coworker appears to have copied it in its entirety from creation.com/the-lost-squadron although the article contains a hyperlink to Answers in Genesis.  I don't think there are copyright issues as he has given links and this means I can share a link the original article._
> 
> _ In brief, the Wieland's article attempts to show why ice cores taken from Greenland glaciers cannot show ages of tens of thousands of years.  That material would be rather dry, and is in fact untrue, so he uses the dramatic true story of a fleet of US fighters and bombers that crash landed on the island as a disguise or hook.  Indeed, of the fifteen or so paragraphs, ten describe the fate of the aircraft and only a few actually discuss ice cores.  One of the key excerpts:
> ...the 3000-metre-long ice core [brought up by the joint European Greenland Ice-core Project (GRIP) in Greenland in 1990–1992] would only represent some 2,000 years of accumulation.
> The article is amazing as a tutorial in how to lie by omission.  One would imagine that the ice cores were taken very near the crash-site. but the two are in fact hundreds of kilometres apart and in what I would describe as different climatic areas.  The planes are near the coast where they receive ocean-effect precipitation (Wikipedia - short version: lots), while the ice core site is more than a hundred kilometres inland.  Here is all the location information given:
> Regarding the planes: "Realising that their only hope was to crash-land on the icy wastes of Greenland’s east coast, they desperately searched till they found a break in the cloud cover."
> And here is everything the article has to say about the location of the ice cores: " "_
> 
> _ On maps, the two locations are clearly distant. Further, one is quite distant inland, while the other is on the coast. Maps (Glacier Girl, Eismitte):_
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A possibly more accurate map of the ice core site is here._
> 
> _ Why is it important that one site is on the coast and the other more than a hundred kilometres inland?  Because of something called Ocean Effect Snow.  This is also known as Lake effect snow and simply describes the phenomenon of greater snowfall occurring close to unfrozen bodies of water than distant from water.  Greenland's coast around the crash site received about 1.5 metres of snow per year but that does not mean that inland site would get a similar amount._
> 
> _ How much snow does the Eismitte get?
> Between 1910 and '28, it received less than half a metre a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More recently (and from a different, but nearby location):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> _ Both show average snowfalls of less than half a metre - the average in the image is 0.24- metres.
> ---
> Added later: True Size Map shows the size of countries without distortion brought on by using a Mercator projection map.  Because Greenland is so far north, it looks huge.  In True Size Map, I pulled it down to the continental USA and it is a lot narrower there - but still longer North-South than the USA so clearly saying the two events are in Greenland cannot mean they must have similar weather conditions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---_
> 
> _ I believe I have shown why Weiland's article cannot be trusted and is probably deliberately dishonest.  Is there more to the story?  Yes, thanks for asking._
> 
> _ From Weiland's article:
> In fact, ice cores in Greenland are used for dating, based on the belief that layers containing varying isotope ratios were laid down, somewhat like the rings of a tree, over many tens of thousands of years. This is the only description of how secular scientists (should those two words be in quotes?) determine the age of segments of the ice core.  There is no attempt to show why varying isotope ratios should be incorrect either.  Left out of Weiland's work is how ice cores can be calibrated by looking for volcanic ash from known eruptions._
> 
> _ To summarize, not only are Weiland's conclusions wrong, they show a strange combination of in-depth research on certain areas and no research on others.  The highest quality of research is on matters that do not relate to the controversy being discussed.  For example, we learn what device is used, and what it's parameters are, for melting the ice to reach the planes, but no details on where the planes were found compared to the location of ice core drilling site.  Further, they the two locations are suggested to be near one another -note the quote about 3000 metres of ice equalling 2000 years accumulation as if those 3000 metres were in the same climate zone._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> already seen this, and all it shows is that ice layers are subjective and unreliable for accurate dating on both sides
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  It shows that the thickness of ice layers varies depending on the amount of snow the place where they are measured receives.
> 
> Your "Glacier Girl P38" example does not prove ice layers are invalid as a means of dating.
> 
> Now explain how the the earth is only 6000 years old when we have physical evidence in some places of 700,000 annual layers of ice
Click to expand...

No more responses from the creationists?


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance, falsehoods and misrepresentations brought to you by the charlatans at one of the most notoriously inept fundamentalist ministries.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to any article the explains how "Glacier Girl" was discovered to be 268 feet under the ice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer is that is snows more near the coast of Greenland where the plane crashed than were the ice cores were drilled, which is near the center of the continent.  Near the coast Greenland gets about 1.5 meters of snow per year.  75 x 1.5 x 3.28 = 369 feet.  Some compression undoubtedly occurred.
> 
> plucking creationism's low-hanging fruit: Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron
> _
> * Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron *
> 
> 
> This is my first post here and I want to get into the meat of an argument I've had with a creationist here in Busan.  Still, some background is probably necessary._
> 
> _ My creationist coworker sent me a long (20 page) discussion of why secular science is wrong about the age of the Earth.  That was the first article he gave me.  He has now sent me four or five and all of a similar length and breadth.  There are two problems with much of the stuff he sends me.  Well, two problems that affect my ability to respond._
> 
> _ First, although he gives an enormous number of references and links, he has admitted that he has not read all of them.  To my uncertain knowledge, of the 39 bullet point examples he gives showing that modern science's aging techniques are wrong, he has read fewer than 10% himself.  I believe this to true for all the references and mined quotes he offers.  I feel that with his name on the article, all errors affect his credibility.
> Second, he occasionally covers material that I don't understand well enough to critique and I don't think he understands well enough to use as a defense.  For example, I know the absolute basics of radiocarbon dating and nothing of the practicalities.  How does one collect a sample and ensure it is not contaminated?  I don't know.  For me, this is reason enough to read the articles with interest but not to post them with my stamp of approval.  I'm not asking for expertise - that would be hypocritical- but when I offer a link, I do so only if I understand the concepts.
> I never claimed it to be 6K yrs old
> The article I'm starting on today covered many aspects of how to date the Earth or what is wrong with dating methods that give answers greater than 6-10,000 years.  This article had many different articles and links in it and I am looking at one of these titled, "Ice Core Sample Dating/ The Lost Squadron".  The original was by Carl Wieland and my coworker appears to have copied it in its entirety from creation.com/the-lost-squadron although the article contains a hyperlink to Answers in Genesis.  I don't think there are copyright issues as he has given links and this means I can share a link the original article._
> 
> _ In brief, the Wieland's article attempts to show why ice cores taken from Greenland glaciers cannot show ages of tens of thousands of years.  That material would be rather dry, and is in fact untrue, so he uses the dramatic true story of a fleet of US fighters and bombers that crash landed on the island as a disguise or hook.  Indeed, of the fifteen or so paragraphs, ten describe the fate of the aircraft and only a few actually discuss ice cores.  One of the key excerpts:
> ...the 3000-metre-long ice core [brought up by the joint European Greenland Ice-core Project (GRIP) in Greenland in 1990–1992] would only represent some 2,000 years of accumulation.
> The article is amazing as a tutorial in how to lie by omission.  One would imagine that the ice cores were taken very near the crash-site. but the two are in fact hundreds of kilometres apart and in what I would describe as different climatic areas.  The planes are near the coast where they receive ocean-effect precipitation (Wikipedia - short version: lots), while the ice core site is more than a hundred kilometres inland.  Here is all the location information given:
> Regarding the planes: "Realising that their only hope was to crash-land on the icy wastes of Greenland’s east coast, they desperately searched till they found a break in the cloud cover."
> And here is everything the article has to say about the location of the ice cores: " "_
> 
> _ On maps, the two locations are clearly distant. Further, one is quite distant inland, while the other is on the coast. Maps (Glacier Girl, Eismitte):_
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A possibly more accurate map of the ice core site is here._
> 
> _ Why is it important that one site is on the coast and the other more than a hundred kilometres inland?  Because of something called Ocean Effect Snow.  This is also known as Lake effect snow and simply describes the phenomenon of greater snowfall occurring close to unfrozen bodies of water than distant from water.  Greenland's coast around the crash site received about 1.5 metres of snow per year but that does not mean that inland site would get a similar amount._
> 
> _ How much snow does the Eismitte get?
> Between 1910 and '28, it received less than half a metre a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More recently (and from a different, but nearby location):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> _ Both show average snowfalls of less than half a metre - the average in the image is 0.24- metres.
> ---
> Added later: True Size Map shows the size of countries without distortion brought on by using a Mercator projection map.  Because Greenland is so far north, it looks huge.  In True Size Map, I pulled it down to the continental USA and it is a lot narrower there - but still longer North-South than the USA so clearly saying the two events are in Greenland cannot mean they must have similar weather conditions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---_
> 
> _ I believe I have shown why Weiland's article cannot be trusted and is probably deliberately dishonest.  Is there more to the story?  Yes, thanks for asking._
> 
> _ From Weiland's article:
> In fact, ice cores in Greenland are used for dating, based on the belief that layers containing varying isotope ratios were laid down, somewhat like the rings of a tree, over many tens of thousands of years. This is the only description of how secular scientists (should those two words be in quotes?) determine the age of segments of the ice core.  There is no attempt to show why varying isotope ratios should be incorrect either.  Left out of Weiland's work is how ice cores can be calibrated by looking for volcanic ash from known eruptions._
> 
> _ To summarize, not only are Weiland's conclusions wrong, they show a strange combination of in-depth research on certain areas and no research on others.  The highest quality of research is on matters that do not relate to the controversy being discussed.  For example, we learn what device is used, and what it's parameters are, for melting the ice to reach the planes, but no details on where the planes were found compared to the location of ice core drilling site.  Further, they the two locations are suggested to be near one another -note the quote about 3000 metres of ice equalling 2000 years accumulation as if those 3000 metres were in the same climate zone._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> already seen this, and all it shows is that ice layers are subjective and unreliable for accurate dating on both sides
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  It shows that the thickness of ice layers varies depending on the amount of snow the place where they are measured receives.
> 
> Your "Glacier Girl P38" example does not prove ice layers are invalid as a means of dating.
> 
> Now explain how the the earth is only 6000 years old when we have physical evidence in some places of 700,000 annual layers of ice
Click to expand...



I never claimed it to be 6K yrs old
how do you explain both human and dino footprints to be in rock dating 500 million yrs old


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to any article the explains how "Glacier Girl" was discovered to be 268 feet under the ice?
> 
> 
> 
> do you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer is that is snows more near the coast of Greenland where the plane crashed than were the ice cores were drilled, which is near the center of the continent.  Near the coast Greenland gets about 1.5 meters of snow per year.  75 x 1.5 x 3.28 = 369 feet.  Some compression undoubtedly occurred.
> 
> plucking creationism's low-hanging fruit: Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron
> _
> * Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron *
> 
> 
> This is my first post here and I want to get into the meat of an argument I've had with a creationist here in Busan.  Still, some background is probably necessary._
> 
> _ My creationist coworker sent me a long (20 page) discussion of why secular science is wrong about the age of the Earth.  That was the first article he gave me.  He has now sent me four or five and all of a similar length and breadth.  There are two problems with much of the stuff he sends me.  Well, two problems that affect my ability to respond._
> 
> _ First, although he gives an enormous number of references and links, he has admitted that he has not read all of them.  To my uncertain knowledge, of the 39 bullet point examples he gives showing that modern science's aging techniques are wrong, he has read fewer than 10% himself.  I believe this to true for all the references and mined quotes he offers.  I feel that with his name on the article, all errors affect his credibility.
> Second, he occasionally covers material that I don't understand well enough to critique and I don't think he understands well enough to use as a defense.  For example, I know the absolute basics of radiocarbon dating and nothing of the practicalities.  How does one collect a sample and ensure it is not contaminated?  I don't know.  For me, this is reason enough to read the articles with interest but not to post them with my stamp of approval.  I'm not asking for expertise - that would be hypocritical- but when I offer a link, I do so only if I understand the concepts.
> I never claimed it to be 6K yrs old
> The article I'm starting on today covered many aspects of how to date the Earth or what is wrong with dating methods that give answers greater than 6-10,000 years.  This article had many different articles and links in it and I am looking at one of these titled, "Ice Core Sample Dating/ The Lost Squadron".  The original was by Carl Wieland and my coworker appears to have copied it in its entirety from creation.com/the-lost-squadron although the article contains a hyperlink to Answers in Genesis.  I don't think there are copyright issues as he has given links and this means I can share a link the original article._
> 
> _ In brief, the Wieland's article attempts to show why ice cores taken from Greenland glaciers cannot show ages of tens of thousands of years.  That material would be rather dry, and is in fact untrue, so he uses the dramatic true story of a fleet of US fighters and bombers that crash landed on the island as a disguise or hook.  Indeed, of the fifteen or so paragraphs, ten describe the fate of the aircraft and only a few actually discuss ice cores.  One of the key excerpts:
> ...the 3000-metre-long ice core [brought up by the joint European Greenland Ice-core Project (GRIP) in Greenland in 1990–1992] would only represent some 2,000 years of accumulation.
> The article is amazing as a tutorial in how to lie by omission.  One would imagine that the ice cores were taken very near the crash-site. but the two are in fact hundreds of kilometres apart and in what I would describe as different climatic areas.  The planes are near the coast where they receive ocean-effect precipitation (Wikipedia - short version: lots), while the ice core site is more than a hundred kilometres inland.  Here is all the location information given:
> Regarding the planes: "Realising that their only hope was to crash-land on the icy wastes of Greenland’s east coast, they desperately searched till they found a break in the cloud cover."
> And here is everything the article has to say about the location of the ice cores: " "_
> 
> _ On maps, the two locations are clearly distant. Further, one is quite distant inland, while the other is on the coast. Maps (Glacier Girl, Eismitte):_
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A possibly more accurate map of the ice core site is here._
> 
> _ Why is it important that one site is on the coast and the other more than a hundred kilometres inland?  Because of something called Ocean Effect Snow.  This is also known as Lake effect snow and simply describes the phenomenon of greater snowfall occurring close to unfrozen bodies of water than distant from water.  Greenland's coast around the crash site received about 1.5 metres of snow per year but that does not mean that inland site would get a similar amount._
> 
> _ How much snow does the Eismitte get?
> Between 1910 and '28, it received less than half a metre a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More recently (and from a different, but nearby location):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> _ Both show average snowfalls of less than half a metre - the average in the image is 0.24- metres.
> ---
> Added later: True Size Map shows the size of countries without distortion brought on by using a Mercator projection map.  Because Greenland is so far north, it looks huge.  In True Size Map, I pulled it down to the continental USA and it is a lot narrower there - but still longer North-South than the USA so clearly saying the two events are in Greenland cannot mean they must have similar weather conditions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---_
> 
> _ I believe I have shown why Weiland's article cannot be trusted and is probably deliberately dishonest.  Is there more to the story?  Yes, thanks for asking._
> 
> _ From Weiland's article:
> In fact, ice cores in Greenland are used for dating, based on the belief that layers containing varying isotope ratios were laid down, somewhat like the rings of a tree, over many tens of thousands of years. This is the only description of how secular scientists (should those two words be in quotes?) determine the age of segments of the ice core.  There is no attempt to show why varying isotope ratios should be incorrect either.  Left out of Weiland's work is how ice cores can be calibrated by looking for volcanic ash from known eruptions._
> 
> _ To summarize, not only are Weiland's conclusions wrong, they show a strange combination of in-depth research on certain areas and no research on others.  The highest quality of research is on matters that do not relate to the controversy being discussed.  For example, we learn what device is used, and what it's parameters are, for melting the ice to reach the planes, but no details on where the planes were found compared to the location of ice core drilling site.  Further, they the two locations are suggested to be near one another -note the quote about 3000 metres of ice equalling 2000 years accumulation as if those 3000 metres were in the same climate zone._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> already seen this, and all it shows is that ice layers are subjective and unreliable for accurate dating on both sides
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  It shows that the thickness of ice layers varies depending on the amount of snow the place where they are measured receives.
> 
> Your "Glacier Girl P38" example does not prove ice layers are invalid as a means of dating.
> 
> Now explain how the the earth is only 6000 years old when we have physical evidence in some places of 700,000 annual layers of ice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed it to be 6K yrs old
> how do you explain both human and dino footprints to be in rock dating 500 million yrs old
Click to expand...

How old do you imagine the Earth is?

First: there were no dinosaurs 500 millions years ago.  There weren't even land animals at that time.

Second:  They aren't human foot prints.

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy

_For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists. 

 The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock). 

 A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history. 

 This web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the Paluxy controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links boarder aspects of trace fossils, paleontology, and the "creation/evolution" issue. Unless otherwise noted, the articles and illustrations are by myself (Glen Kuban). The site now includes a photo gallery  of dinosaur track sites. Among the recent additions is a review of an alleged stegosaurus carving on a temple in Cambodia, and an article explaining why trace fossils refute "Flood Geology." I welcome comments, questions, and corrections from visitors. Feel free to contact me at gkpaleo at yahoo.com (just replace the "at" with @ and close the spaces; I'm doing this to reduce spam). Since some visitors have asked about my background, I have included a brief bio.  Thanks, and enjoy your visit!_​


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the don't show the snow that accumulated over a year?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOPE,, and if you read the article it will show the planes were buried about 75 yrs ago and had hundreds if not thousands of layers and was several hundred feet deep
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would the charlatans at your fundie Christian ministry know how many layers of ice had accumulated?
> 
> Why don’t you present the data, ice cores, published papers they presented.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry after your insults I would never try and debate a dumbcunt like you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How, umm, Christian of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when did I claim to be christian???
Click to expand...

You're spouting Christian dogma, do it's logical to conclude that you're a Christian.


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is that is snows more near the coast of Greenland where the plane crashed than were the ice cores were drilled, which is near the center of the continent.  Near the coast Greenland gets about 1.5 meters of snow per year.  75 x 1.5 x 3.28 = 369 feet.  Some compression undoubtedly occurred.
> 
> plucking creationism's low-hanging fruit: Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron
> _
> * Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron *
> 
> 
> This is my first post here and I want to get into the meat of an argument I've had with a creationist here in Busan.  Still, some background is probably necessary._
> 
> _ My creationist coworker sent me a long (20 page) discussion of why secular science is wrong about the age of the Earth.  That was the first article he gave me.  He has now sent me four or five and all of a similar length and breadth.  There are two problems with much of the stuff he sends me.  Well, two problems that affect my ability to respond._
> 
> _ First, although he gives an enormous number of references and links, he has admitted that he has not read all of them.  To my uncertain knowledge, of the 39 bullet point examples he gives showing that modern science's aging techniques are wrong, he has read fewer than 10% himself.  I believe this to true for all the references and mined quotes he offers.  I feel that with his name on the article, all errors affect his credibility.
> Second, he occasionally covers material that I don't understand well enough to critique and I don't think he understands well enough to use as a defense.  For example, I know the absolute basics of radiocarbon dating and nothing of the practicalities.  How does one collect a sample and ensure it is not contaminated?  I don't know.  For me, this is reason enough to read the articles with interest but not to post them with my stamp of approval.  I'm not asking for expertise - that would be hypocritical- but when I offer a link, I do so only if I understand the concepts.
> I never claimed it to be 6K yrs old
> The article I'm starting on today covered many aspects of how to date the Earth or what is wrong with dating methods that give answers greater than 6-10,000 years.  This article had many different articles and links in it and I am looking at one of these titled, "Ice Core Sample Dating/ The Lost Squadron".  The original was by Carl Wieland and my coworker appears to have copied it in its entirety from creation.com/the-lost-squadron although the article contains a hyperlink to Answers in Genesis.  I don't think there are copyright issues as he has given links and this means I can share a link the original article._
> 
> _ In brief, the Wieland's article attempts to show why ice cores taken from Greenland glaciers cannot show ages of tens of thousands of years.  That material would be rather dry, and is in fact untrue, so he uses the dramatic true story of a fleet of US fighters and bombers that crash landed on the island as a disguise or hook.  Indeed, of the fifteen or so paragraphs, ten describe the fate of the aircraft and only a few actually discuss ice cores.  One of the key excerpts:
> ...the 3000-metre-long ice core [brought up by the joint European Greenland Ice-core Project (GRIP) in Greenland in 1990–1992] would only represent some 2,000 years of accumulation.
> The article is amazing as a tutorial in how to lie by omission.  One would imagine that the ice cores were taken very near the crash-site. but the two are in fact hundreds of kilometres apart and in what I would describe as different climatic areas.  The planes are near the coast where they receive ocean-effect precipitation (Wikipedia - short version: lots), while the ice core site is more than a hundred kilometres inland.  Here is all the location information given:
> Regarding the planes: "Realising that their only hope was to crash-land on the icy wastes of Greenland’s east coast, they desperately searched till they found a break in the cloud cover."
> And here is everything the article has to say about the location of the ice cores: " "_
> 
> _ On maps, the two locations are clearly distant. Further, one is quite distant inland, while the other is on the coast. Maps (Glacier Girl, Eismitte):_
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A possibly more accurate map of the ice core site is here._
> 
> _ Why is it important that one site is on the coast and the other more than a hundred kilometres inland?  Because of something called Ocean Effect Snow.  This is also known as Lake effect snow and simply describes the phenomenon of greater snowfall occurring close to unfrozen bodies of water than distant from water.  Greenland's coast around the crash site received about 1.5 metres of snow per year but that does not mean that inland site would get a similar amount._
> 
> _ How much snow does the Eismitte get?
> Between 1910 and '28, it received less than half a metre a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More recently (and from a different, but nearby location):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> _ Both show average snowfalls of less than half a metre - the average in the image is 0.24- metres.
> ---
> Added later: True Size Map shows the size of countries without distortion brought on by using a Mercator projection map.  Because Greenland is so far north, it looks huge.  In True Size Map, I pulled it down to the continental USA and it is a lot narrower there - but still longer North-South than the USA so clearly saying the two events are in Greenland cannot mean they must have similar weather conditions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---_
> 
> _ I believe I have shown why Weiland's article cannot be trusted and is probably deliberately dishonest.  Is there more to the story?  Yes, thanks for asking._
> 
> _ From Weiland's article:
> In fact, ice cores in Greenland are used for dating, based on the belief that layers containing varying isotope ratios were laid down, somewhat like the rings of a tree, over many tens of thousands of years. This is the only description of how secular scientists (should those two words be in quotes?) determine the age of segments of the ice core.  There is no attempt to show why varying isotope ratios should be incorrect either.  Left out of Weiland's work is how ice cores can be calibrated by looking for volcanic ash from known eruptions._
> 
> _ To summarize, not only are Weiland's conclusions wrong, they show a strange combination of in-depth research on certain areas and no research on others.  The highest quality of research is on matters that do not relate to the controversy being discussed.  For example, we learn what device is used, and what it's parameters are, for melting the ice to reach the planes, but no details on where the planes were found compared to the location of ice core drilling site.  Further, they the two locations are suggested to be near one another -note the quote about 3000 metres of ice equalling 2000 years accumulation as if those 3000 metres were in the same climate zone._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> already seen this, and all it shows is that ice layers are subjective and unreliable for accurate dating on both sides
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  It shows that the thickness of ice layers varies depending on the amount of snow the place where they are measured receives.
> 
> Your "Glacier Girl P38" example does not prove ice layers are invalid as a means of dating.
> 
> Now explain how the the earth is only 6000 years old when we have physical evidence in some places of 700,000 annual layers of ice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed it to be 6K yrs old
> how do you explain both human and dino footprints to be in rock dating 500 million yrs old
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How old do you imagine the Earth is?
> 
> First: there were no dinosaurs 500 millions years ago.  There weren't even land animals at that time.
> 
> Second:  They aren't human foot prints.
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> _For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.
> 
> The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock).
> 
> A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.
> 
> This web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the Paluxy controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links boarder aspects of trace fossils, paleontology, and the "creation/evolution" issue. Unless otherwise noted, the articles and illustrations are by myself (Glen Kuban). The site now includes a photo gallery  of dinosaur track sites. Among the recent additions is a review of an alleged stegosaurus carving on a temple in Cambodia, and an article explaining why trace fossils refute "Flood Geology." I welcome comments, questions, and corrections from visitors. Feel free to contact me at gkpaleo at yahoo.com (just replace the "at" with @ and close the spaces; I'm doing this to reduce spam). Since some visitors have asked about my background, I have included a brief bio.  Thanks, and enjoy your visit!_​
Click to expand...

you guys always have some made up bullshit to explain everything that proves you wrong bogus,,,I know a foot print when I see one

I CALL BULLSHIT

HOW ABOUT YOU KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF THE SCHOOLS TOO


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOPE,, and if you read the article it will show the planes were buried about 75 yrs ago and had hundreds if not thousands of layers and was several hundred feet deep
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would the charlatans at your fundie Christian ministry know how many layers of ice had accumulated?
> 
> Why don’t you present the data, ice cores, published papers they presented.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry after your insults I would never try and debate a dumbcunt like you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How, umm, Christian of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when did I claim to be christian???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stating facts is not dogma
Click to expand...


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is that is snows more near the coast of Greenland where the plane crashed than were the ice cores were drilled, which is near the center of the continent.  Near the coast Greenland gets about 1.5 meters of snow per year.  75 x 1.5 x 3.28 = 369 feet.  Some compression undoubtedly occurred.
> 
> plucking creationism's low-hanging fruit: Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron
> _
> * Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron *
> 
> 
> This is my first post here and I want to get into the meat of an argument I've had with a creationist here in Busan.  Still, some background is probably necessary._
> 
> _ My creationist coworker sent me a long (20 page) discussion of why secular science is wrong about the age of the Earth.  That was the first article he gave me.  He has now sent me four or five and all of a similar length and breadth.  There are two problems with much of the stuff he sends me.  Well, two problems that affect my ability to respond._
> 
> _ First, although he gives an enormous number of references and links, he has admitted that he has not read all of them.  To my uncertain knowledge, of the 39 bullet point examples he gives showing that modern science's aging techniques are wrong, he has read fewer than 10% himself.  I believe this to true for all the references and mined quotes he offers.  I feel that with his name on the article, all errors affect his credibility.
> Second, he occasionally covers material that I don't understand well enough to critique and I don't think he understands well enough to use as a defense.  For example, I know the absolute basics of radiocarbon dating and nothing of the practicalities.  How does one collect a sample and ensure it is not contaminated?  I don't know.  For me, this is reason enough to read the articles with interest but not to post them with my stamp of approval.  I'm not asking for expertise - that would be hypocritical- but when I offer a link, I do so only if I understand the concepts.
> I never claimed it to be 6K yrs old
> The article I'm starting on today covered many aspects of how to date the Earth or what is wrong with dating methods that give answers greater than 6-10,000 years.  This article had many different articles and links in it and I am looking at one of these titled, "Ice Core Sample Dating/ The Lost Squadron".  The original was by Carl Wieland and my coworker appears to have copied it in its entirety from creation.com/the-lost-squadron although the article contains a hyperlink to Answers in Genesis.  I don't think there are copyright issues as he has given links and this means I can share a link the original article._
> 
> _ In brief, the Wieland's article attempts to show why ice cores taken from Greenland glaciers cannot show ages of tens of thousands of years.  That material would be rather dry, and is in fact untrue, so he uses the dramatic true story of a fleet of US fighters and bombers that crash landed on the island as a disguise or hook.  Indeed, of the fifteen or so paragraphs, ten describe the fate of the aircraft and only a few actually discuss ice cores.  One of the key excerpts:
> ...the 3000-metre-long ice core [brought up by the joint European Greenland Ice-core Project (GRIP) in Greenland in 1990–1992] would only represent some 2,000 years of accumulation.
> The article is amazing as a tutorial in how to lie by omission.  One would imagine that the ice cores were taken very near the crash-site. but the two are in fact hundreds of kilometres apart and in what I would describe as different climatic areas.  The planes are near the coast where they receive ocean-effect precipitation (Wikipedia - short version: lots), while the ice core site is more than a hundred kilometres inland.  Here is all the location information given:
> Regarding the planes: "Realising that their only hope was to crash-land on the icy wastes of Greenland’s east coast, they desperately searched till they found a break in the cloud cover."
> And here is everything the article has to say about the location of the ice cores: " "_
> 
> _ On maps, the two locations are clearly distant. Further, one is quite distant inland, while the other is on the coast. Maps (Glacier Girl, Eismitte):_
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A possibly more accurate map of the ice core site is here._
> 
> _ Why is it important that one site is on the coast and the other more than a hundred kilometres inland?  Because of something called Ocean Effect Snow.  This is also known as Lake effect snow and simply describes the phenomenon of greater snowfall occurring close to unfrozen bodies of water than distant from water.  Greenland's coast around the crash site received about 1.5 metres of snow per year but that does not mean that inland site would get a similar amount._
> 
> _ How much snow does the Eismitte get?
> Between 1910 and '28, it received less than half a metre a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More recently (and from a different, but nearby location):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> _ Both show average snowfalls of less than half a metre - the average in the image is 0.24- metres.
> ---
> Added later: True Size Map shows the size of countries without distortion brought on by using a Mercator projection map.  Because Greenland is so far north, it looks huge.  In True Size Map, I pulled it down to the continental USA and it is a lot narrower there - but still longer North-South than the USA so clearly saying the two events are in Greenland cannot mean they must have similar weather conditions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---_
> 
> _ I believe I have shown why Weiland's article cannot be trusted and is probably deliberately dishonest.  Is there more to the story?  Yes, thanks for asking._
> 
> _ From Weiland's article:
> In fact, ice cores in Greenland are used for dating, based on the belief that layers containing varying isotope ratios were laid down, somewhat like the rings of a tree, over many tens of thousands of years. This is the only description of how secular scientists (should those two words be in quotes?) determine the age of segments of the ice core.  There is no attempt to show why varying isotope ratios should be incorrect either.  Left out of Weiland's work is how ice cores can be calibrated by looking for volcanic ash from known eruptions._
> 
> _ To summarize, not only are Weiland's conclusions wrong, they show a strange combination of in-depth research on certain areas and no research on others.  The highest quality of research is on matters that do not relate to the controversy being discussed.  For example, we learn what device is used, and what it's parameters are, for melting the ice to reach the planes, but no details on where the planes were found compared to the location of ice core drilling site.  Further, they the two locations are suggested to be near one another -note the quote about 3000 metres of ice equalling 2000 years accumulation as if those 3000 metres were in the same climate zone._​
> 
> 
> 
> already seen this, and all it shows is that ice layers are subjective and unreliable for accurate dating on both sides
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  It shows that the thickness of ice layers varies depending on the amount of snow the place where they are measured receives.
> 
> Your "Glacier Girl P38" example does not prove ice layers are invalid as a means of dating.
> 
> Now explain how the the earth is only 6000 years old when we have physical evidence in some places of 700,000 annual layers of ice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed it to be 6K yrs old
> how do you explain both human and dino footprints to be in rock dating 500 million yrs old
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How old do you imagine the Earth is?
> 
> First: there were no dinosaurs 500 millions years ago.  There weren't even land animals at that time.
> 
> Second:  They aren't human foot prints.
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> _For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.
> 
> The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock).
> 
> A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.
> 
> This web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the Paluxy controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links boarder aspects of trace fossils, paleontology, and the "creation/evolution" issue. Unless otherwise noted, the articles and illustrations are by myself (Glen Kuban). The site now includes a photo gallery  of dinosaur track sites. Among the recent additions is a review of an alleged stegosaurus carving on a temple in Cambodia, and an article explaining why trace fossils refute "Flood Geology." I welcome comments, questions, and corrections from visitors. Feel free to contact me at gkpaleo at yahoo.com (just replace the "at" with @ and close the spaces; I'm doing this to reduce spam). Since some visitors have asked about my background, I have included a brief bio.  Thanks, and enjoy your visit!_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you guys always have some made up bullshit to explain everything that proves you wrong bogus,,,I know a foot print when I see one
> 
> I CALL BULLSHIT
> 
> HOW ABOUT YOU KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF THE SCHOOLS TOO
Click to expand...

Prove this is a human foot print:


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would the charlatans at your fundie Christian ministry know how many layers of ice had accumulated?
> 
> Why don’t you present the data, ice cores, published papers they presented.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry after your insults I would never try and debate a dumbcunt like you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How, umm, Christian of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when did I claim to be christian???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stating facts is not dogma
Click to expand...


Call it what you wish, only Christians believe it.


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> already seen this, and all it shows is that ice layers are subjective and unreliable for accurate dating on both sides
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It shows that the thickness of ice layers varies depending on the amount of snow the place where they are measured receives.
> 
> Your "Glacier Girl P38" example does not prove ice layers are invalid as a means of dating.
> 
> Now explain how the the earth is only 6000 years old when we have physical evidence in some places of 700,000 annual layers of ice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed it to be 6K yrs old
> how do you explain both human and dino footprints to be in rock dating 500 million yrs old
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How old do you imagine the Earth is?
> 
> First: there were no dinosaurs 500 millions years ago.  There weren't even land animals at that time.
> 
> Second:  They aren't human foot prints.
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> _For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.
> 
> The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock).
> 
> A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.
> 
> This web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the Paluxy controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links boarder aspects of trace fossils, paleontology, and the "creation/evolution" issue. Unless otherwise noted, the articles and illustrations are by myself (Glen Kuban). The site now includes a photo gallery  of dinosaur track sites. Among the recent additions is a review of an alleged stegosaurus carving on a temple in Cambodia, and an article explaining why trace fossils refute "Flood Geology." I welcome comments, questions, and corrections from visitors. Feel free to contact me at gkpaleo at yahoo.com (just replace the "at" with @ and close the spaces; I'm doing this to reduce spam). Since some visitors have asked about my background, I have included a brief bio.  Thanks, and enjoy your visit!_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you guys always have some made up bullshit to explain everything that proves you wrong bogus,,,I know a foot print when I see one
> 
> I CALL BULLSHIT
> 
> HOW ABOUT YOU KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF THE SCHOOLS TOO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove this is a human foot print:
Click to expand...



prove this isnt


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would the charlatans at your fundie Christian ministry know how many layers of ice had accumulated?
> 
> Why don’t you present the data, ice cores, published papers they presented.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry after your insults I would never try and debate a dumbcunt like you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How, umm, Christian of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when did I claim to be christian???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stating facts is not dogma
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call it what you wish, only Christians believe it.
Click to expand...

believe what??


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It shows that the thickness of ice layers varies depending on the amount of snow the place where they are measured receives.
> 
> Your "Glacier Girl P38" example does not prove ice layers are invalid as a means of dating.
> 
> Now explain how the the earth is only 6000 years old when we have physical evidence in some places of 700,000 annual layers of ice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed it to be 6K yrs old
> how do you explain both human and dino footprints to be in rock dating 500 million yrs old
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How old do you imagine the Earth is?
> 
> First: there were no dinosaurs 500 millions years ago.  There weren't even land animals at that time.
> 
> Second:  They aren't human foot prints.
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> _For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.
> 
> The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock).
> 
> A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.
> 
> This web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the Paluxy controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links boarder aspects of trace fossils, paleontology, and the "creation/evolution" issue. Unless otherwise noted, the articles and illustrations are by myself (Glen Kuban). The site now includes a photo gallery  of dinosaur track sites. Among the recent additions is a review of an alleged stegosaurus carving on a temple in Cambodia, and an article explaining why trace fossils refute "Flood Geology." I welcome comments, questions, and corrections from visitors. Feel free to contact me at gkpaleo at yahoo.com (just replace the "at" with @ and close the spaces; I'm doing this to reduce spam). Since some visitors have asked about my background, I have included a brief bio.  Thanks, and enjoy your visit!_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you guys always have some made up bullshit to explain everything that proves you wrong bogus,,,I know a foot print when I see one
> 
> I CALL BULLSHIT
> 
> HOW ABOUT YOU KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF THE SCHOOLS TOO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove this is a human foot print:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> prove this isnt
Click to expand...

Source?


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed it to be 6K yrs old
> how do you explain both human and dino footprints to be in rock dating 500 million yrs old
> 
> 
> 
> How old do you imagine the Earth is?
> 
> First: there were no dinosaurs 500 millions years ago.  There weren't even land animals at that time.
> 
> Second:  They aren't human foot prints.
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> _For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.
> 
> The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock).
> 
> A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.
> 
> This web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the Paluxy controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links boarder aspects of trace fossils, paleontology, and the "creation/evolution" issue. Unless otherwise noted, the articles and illustrations are by myself (Glen Kuban). The site now includes a photo gallery  of dinosaur track sites. Among the recent additions is a review of an alleged stegosaurus carving on a temple in Cambodia, and an article explaining why trace fossils refute "Flood Geology." I welcome comments, questions, and corrections from visitors. Feel free to contact me at gkpaleo at yahoo.com (just replace the "at" with @ and close the spaces; I'm doing this to reduce spam). Since some visitors have asked about my background, I have included a brief bio.  Thanks, and enjoy your visit!_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you guys always have some made up bullshit to explain everything that proves you wrong bogus,,,I know a foot print when I see one
> 
> I CALL BULLSHIT
> 
> HOW ABOUT YOU KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF THE SCHOOLS TOO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove this is a human foot print:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> prove this isnt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Source?
Click to expand...

you first


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry after your insults I would never try and debate a dumbcunt like you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How, umm, Christian of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when did I claim to be christian???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stating facts is not dogma
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call it what you wish, only Christians believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> believe what??
Click to expand...

For example, only certain Christians believe that human foot prints were found next to Dinosaur foot prints.


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How, umm, Christian of you.
> 
> 
> 
> when did I claim to be christian???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stating facts is not dogma
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call it what you wish, only Christians believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> believe what??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For example, only certain Christians believe that human foot prints were found next to Dinosaur foot prints.
Click to expand...

alinsky 101,,,when you cant refute the message attack the messenger


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It shows that the thickness of ice layers varies depending on the amount of snow the place where they are measured receives.
> 
> Your "Glacier Girl P38" example does not prove ice layers are invalid as a means of dating.
> 
> Now explain how the the earth is only 6000 years old when we have physical evidence in some places of 700,000 annual layers of ice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed it to be 6K yrs old
> how do you explain both human and dino footprints to be in rock dating 500 million yrs old
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How old do you imagine the Earth is?
> 
> First: there were no dinosaurs 500 millions years ago.  There weren't even land animals at that time.
> 
> Second:  They aren't human foot prints.
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> _For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.
> 
> The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock).
> 
> A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.
> 
> This web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the Paluxy controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links boarder aspects of trace fossils, paleontology, and the "creation/evolution" issue. Unless otherwise noted, the articles and illustrations are by myself (Glen Kuban). The site now includes a photo gallery  of dinosaur track sites. Among the recent additions is a review of an alleged stegosaurus carving on a temple in Cambodia, and an article explaining why trace fossils refute "Flood Geology." I welcome comments, questions, and corrections from visitors. Feel free to contact me at gkpaleo at yahoo.com (just replace the "at" with @ and close the spaces; I'm doing this to reduce spam). Since some visitors have asked about my background, I have included a brief bio.  Thanks, and enjoy your visit!_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you guys always have some made up bullshit to explain everything that proves you wrong bogus,,,I know a foot print when I see one
> 
> I CALL BULLSHIT
> 
> HOW ABOUT YOU KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF THE SCHOOLS TOO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove this is a human foot print:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> prove this isnt
Click to expand...


I’ ve proved it isn’t. 

Prove I haven’t.


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How old do you imagine the Earth is?
> 
> First: there were no dinosaurs 500 millions years ago.  There weren't even land animals at that time.
> 
> Second:  They aren't human foot prints.
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> _For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.
> 
> The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock).
> 
> A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.
> 
> This web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the Paluxy controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links boarder aspects of trace fossils, paleontology, and the "creation/evolution" issue. Unless otherwise noted, the articles and illustrations are by myself (Glen Kuban). The site now includes a photo gallery  of dinosaur track sites. Among the recent additions is a review of an alleged stegosaurus carving on a temple in Cambodia, and an article explaining why trace fossils refute "Flood Geology." I welcome comments, questions, and corrections from visitors. Feel free to contact me at gkpaleo at yahoo.com (just replace the "at" with @ and close the spaces; I'm doing this to reduce spam). Since some visitors have asked about my background, I have included a brief bio.  Thanks, and enjoy your visit!_​
> 
> 
> 
> you guys always have some made up bullshit to explain everything that proves you wrong bogus,,,I know a foot print when I see one
> 
> I CALL BULLSHIT
> 
> HOW ABOUT YOU KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF THE SCHOOLS TOO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove this is a human foot print:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> prove this isnt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you first
Click to expand...

A Topical Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy


----------



## progressive hunter

Hollie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed it to be 6K yrs old
> how do you explain both human and dino footprints to be in rock dating 500 million yrs old
> 
> 
> 
> How old do you imagine the Earth is?
> 
> First: there were no dinosaurs 500 millions years ago.  There weren't even land animals at that time.
> 
> Second:  They aren't human foot prints.
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> _For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.
> 
> The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock).
> 
> A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.
> 
> This web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the Paluxy controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links boarder aspects of trace fossils, paleontology, and the "creation/evolution" issue. Unless otherwise noted, the articles and illustrations are by myself (Glen Kuban). The site now includes a photo gallery  of dinosaur track sites. Among the recent additions is a review of an alleged stegosaurus carving on a temple in Cambodia, and an article explaining why trace fossils refute "Flood Geology." I welcome comments, questions, and corrections from visitors. Feel free to contact me at gkpaleo at yahoo.com (just replace the "at" with @ and close the spaces; I'm doing this to reduce spam). Since some visitors have asked about my background, I have included a brief bio.  Thanks, and enjoy your visit!_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you guys always have some made up bullshit to explain everything that proves you wrong bogus,,,I know a foot print when I see one
> 
> I CALL BULLSHIT
> 
> HOW ABOUT YOU KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF THE SCHOOLS TOO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove this is a human foot print:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> prove this isnt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’ ve proved it isn’t.
> 
> Prove I haven’t.
Click to expand...




no you didnt


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> when did I claim to be christian???
> 
> 
> 
> stating facts is not dogma
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call it what you wish, only Christians believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> believe what??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For example, only certain Christians believe that human foot prints were found next to Dinosaur foot prints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> alinsky 101,,,when you cant refute the message attack the messenger
Click to expand...

Describing you as a Christian is "attacking" you?


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> stating facts is not dogma
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Call it what you wish, only Christians believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> believe what??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For example, only certain Christians believe that human foot prints were found next to Dinosaur foot prints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> alinsky 101,,,when you cant refute the message attack the messenger
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Describing you as a Christian is "attacking" you?
Click to expand...

yep


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It shows that the thickness of ice layers varies depending on the amount of snow the place where they are measured receives.
> 
> Your "Glacier Girl P38" example does not prove ice layers are invalid as a means of dating.
> 
> Now explain how the the earth is only 6000 years old when we have physical evidence in some places of 700,000 annual layers of ice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed it to be 6K yrs old
> how do you explain both human and dino footprints to be in rock dating 500 million yrs old
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How old do you imagine the Earth is?
> 
> First: there were no dinosaurs 500 millions years ago.  There weren't even land animals at that time.
> 
> Second:  They aren't human foot prints.
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> _For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.
> 
> The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock).
> 
> A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.
> 
> This web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the Paluxy controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links boarder aspects of trace fossils, paleontology, and the "creation/evolution" issue. Unless otherwise noted, the articles and illustrations are by myself (Glen Kuban). The site now includes a photo gallery  of dinosaur track sites. Among the recent additions is a review of an alleged stegosaurus carving on a temple in Cambodia, and an article explaining why trace fossils refute "Flood Geology." I welcome comments, questions, and corrections from visitors. Feel free to contact me at gkpaleo at yahoo.com (just replace the "at" with @ and close the spaces; I'm doing this to reduce spam). Since some visitors have asked about my background, I have included a brief bio.  Thanks, and enjoy your visit!_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you guys always have some made up bullshit to explain everything that proves you wrong bogus,,,I know a foot print when I see one
> 
> I CALL BULLSHIT
> 
> HOW ABOUT YOU KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF THE SCHOOLS TOO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove this is a human foot print:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> prove this isnt
Click to expand...



You cut and pasted that from “Genesis Park”.

You were too embarrassed to admit your source, right?


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How old do you imagine the Earth is?
> 
> First: there were no dinosaurs 500 millions years ago.  There weren't even land animals at that time.
> 
> Second:  They aren't human foot prints.
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> _For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.
> 
> The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock).
> 
> A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.
> 
> This web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the Paluxy controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links boarder aspects of trace fossils, paleontology, and the "creation/evolution" issue. Unless otherwise noted, the articles and illustrations are by myself (Glen Kuban). The site now includes a photo gallery  of dinosaur track sites. Among the recent additions is a review of an alleged stegosaurus carving on a temple in Cambodia, and an article explaining why trace fossils refute "Flood Geology." I welcome comments, questions, and corrections from visitors. Feel free to contact me at gkpaleo at yahoo.com (just replace the "at" with @ and close the spaces; I'm doing this to reduce spam). Since some visitors have asked about my background, I have included a brief bio.  Thanks, and enjoy your visit!_​
> 
> 
> 
> you guys always have some made up bullshit to explain everything that proves you wrong bogus,,,I know a foot print when I see one
> 
> I CALL BULLSHIT
> 
> HOW ABOUT YOU KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF THE SCHOOLS TOO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove this is a human foot print:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> prove this isnt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’ ve proved it isn’t.
> 
> Prove I haven’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no you didnt
Click to expand...


“Prove it isn’t”


----------



## progressive hunter

Hollie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed it to be 6K yrs old
> how do you explain both human and dino footprints to be in rock dating 500 million yrs old
> 
> 
> 
> How old do you imagine the Earth is?
> 
> First: there were no dinosaurs 500 millions years ago.  There weren't even land animals at that time.
> 
> Second:  They aren't human foot prints.
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> _For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.
> 
> The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock).
> 
> A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.
> 
> This web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the Paluxy controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links boarder aspects of trace fossils, paleontology, and the "creation/evolution" issue. Unless otherwise noted, the articles and illustrations are by myself (Glen Kuban). The site now includes a photo gallery  of dinosaur track sites. Among the recent additions is a review of an alleged stegosaurus carving on a temple in Cambodia, and an article explaining why trace fossils refute "Flood Geology." I welcome comments, questions, and corrections from visitors. Feel free to contact me at gkpaleo at yahoo.com (just replace the "at" with @ and close the spaces; I'm doing this to reduce spam). Since some visitors have asked about my background, I have included a brief bio.  Thanks, and enjoy your visit!_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you guys always have some made up bullshit to explain everything that proves you wrong bogus,,,I know a foot print when I see one
> 
> I CALL BULLSHIT
> 
> HOW ABOUT YOU KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF THE SCHOOLS TOO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove this is a human foot print:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> prove this isnt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You cut and pasted that from “Genesis Park”.
> 
> You were too embarrassed to admit your source, right?
Click to expand...



its times like this you show how much of a dumb **** you are,,,,if you already knew the source then why ask


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How old do you imagine the Earth is?
> 
> First: there were no dinosaurs 500 millions years ago.  There weren't even land animals at that time.
> 
> Second:  They aren't human foot prints.
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> _For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.
> 
> The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock).
> 
> A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.
> 
> This web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the Paluxy controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links boarder aspects of trace fossils, paleontology, and the "creation/evolution" issue. Unless otherwise noted, the articles and illustrations are by myself (Glen Kuban). The site now includes a photo gallery  of dinosaur track sites. Among the recent additions is a review of an alleged stegosaurus carving on a temple in Cambodia, and an article explaining why trace fossils refute "Flood Geology." I welcome comments, questions, and corrections from visitors. Feel free to contact me at gkpaleo at yahoo.com (just replace the "at" with @ and close the spaces; I'm doing this to reduce spam). Since some visitors have asked about my background, I have included a brief bio.  Thanks, and enjoy your visit!_​
> 
> 
> 
> you guys always have some made up bullshit to explain everything that proves you wrong bogus,,,I know a foot print when I see one
> 
> I CALL BULLSHIT
> 
> HOW ABOUT YOU KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF THE SCHOOLS TOO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove this is a human foot print:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> prove this isnt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You cut and pasted that from “Genesis Park”.
> 
> You were too embarrassed to admit your source, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its times like this you show how much of a dumb **** you are,,,,if you already knew the source then why ask
Click to expand...



Such an angry xtian. When your source is a fraud, you attack the messenger who points out your fraud. 

Remember the golden rules? 

Thousest shall not’est cut and paste’eth from fundie cranks’ests.


----------



## progressive hunter

Hollie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> you guys always have some made up bullshit to explain everything that proves you wrong bogus,,,I know a foot print when I see one
> 
> I CALL BULLSHIT
> 
> HOW ABOUT YOU KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF THE SCHOOLS TOO
> 
> 
> 
> Prove this is a human foot print:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> prove this isnt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You cut and pasted that from “Genesis Park”.
> 
> You were too embarrassed to admit your source, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its times like this you show how much of a dumb **** you are,,,,if you already knew the source then why ask
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Such an angry xtian. When your source is a fraud, you attack the messenger who points out your fraud.
> 
> Remember the golden rules?
> 
> Thousest shall not’est cut and paste’eth from fundie cranks’ests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> were you at the beach when you came up with that??
Click to expand...


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It shows that the thickness of ice layers varies depending on the amount of snow the place where they are measured receives.
> 
> Your "Glacier Girl P38" example does not prove ice layers are invalid as a means of dating.
> 
> Now explain how the the earth is only 6000 years old when we have physical evidence in some places of 700,000 annual layers of ice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed it to be 6K yrs old
> how do you explain both human and dino footprints to be in rock dating 500 million yrs old
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How old do you imagine the Earth is?
> 
> First: there were no dinosaurs 500 millions years ago.  There weren't even land animals at that time.
> 
> Second:  They aren't human foot prints.
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> _For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.
> 
> The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock).
> 
> A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.
> 
> This web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the Paluxy controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links boarder aspects of trace fossils, paleontology, and the "creation/evolution" issue. Unless otherwise noted, the articles and illustrations are by myself (Glen Kuban). The site now includes a photo gallery  of dinosaur track sites. Among the recent additions is a review of an alleged stegosaurus carving on a temple in Cambodia, and an article explaining why trace fossils refute "Flood Geology." I welcome comments, questions, and corrections from visitors. Feel free to contact me at gkpaleo at yahoo.com (just replace the "at" with @ and close the spaces; I'm doing this to reduce spam). Since some visitors have asked about my background, I have included a brief bio.  Thanks, and enjoy your visit!_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you guys always have some made up bullshit to explain everything that proves you wrong bogus,,,I know a foot print when I see one
> 
> I CALL BULLSHIT
> 
> HOW ABOUT YOU KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF THE SCHOOLS TOO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove this is a human foot print:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> prove this isnt
Click to expand...


The Zapata Track


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove this is a human foot print:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> prove this isnt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cut and pasted that from “Genesis Park”.
> 
> You were too embarrassed to admit your source, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its times like this you show how much of a dumb **** you are,,,,if you already knew the source then why ask
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Such an angry xtian. When your source is a fraud, you attack the messenger who points out your fraud.
> 
> Remember the golden rules?
> 
> Thousest shall not’est cut and paste’eth from fundie cranks’ests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> were you at the beach when you came up with that??
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



That’s some of your best commentary so far.


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed it to be 6K yrs old
> how do you explain both human and dino footprints to be in rock dating 500 million yrs old
> 
> 
> 
> How old do you imagine the Earth is?
> 
> First: there were no dinosaurs 500 millions years ago.  There weren't even land animals at that time.
> 
> Second:  They aren't human foot prints.
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> _For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.
> 
> The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock).
> 
> A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.
> 
> This web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the Paluxy controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links boarder aspects of trace fossils, paleontology, and the "creation/evolution" issue. Unless otherwise noted, the articles and illustrations are by myself (Glen Kuban). The site now includes a photo gallery  of dinosaur track sites. Among the recent additions is a review of an alleged stegosaurus carving on a temple in Cambodia, and an article explaining why trace fossils refute "Flood Geology." I welcome comments, questions, and corrections from visitors. Feel free to contact me at gkpaleo at yahoo.com (just replace the "at" with @ and close the spaces; I'm doing this to reduce spam). Since some visitors have asked about my background, I have included a brief bio.  Thanks, and enjoy your visit!_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you guys always have some made up bullshit to explain everything that proves you wrong bogus,,,I know a foot print when I see one
> 
> I CALL BULLSHIT
> 
> HOW ABOUT YOU KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF THE SCHOOLS TOO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove this is a human foot print:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> prove this isnt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zapata Track
Click to expand...



I know you wont watch it


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How old do you imagine the Earth is?
> 
> First: there were no dinosaurs 500 millions years ago.  There weren't even land animals at that time.
> 
> Second:  They aren't human foot prints.
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> _For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.
> 
> The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock).
> 
> A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.
> 
> This web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the Paluxy controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links boarder aspects of trace fossils, paleontology, and the "creation/evolution" issue. Unless otherwise noted, the articles and illustrations are by myself (Glen Kuban). The site now includes a photo gallery  of dinosaur track sites. Among the recent additions is a review of an alleged stegosaurus carving on a temple in Cambodia, and an article explaining why trace fossils refute "Flood Geology." I welcome comments, questions, and corrections from visitors. Feel free to contact me at gkpaleo at yahoo.com (just replace the "at" with @ and close the spaces; I'm doing this to reduce spam). Since some visitors have asked about my background, I have included a brief bio.  Thanks, and enjoy your visit!_​
> 
> 
> 
> you guys always have some made up bullshit to explain everything that proves you wrong bogus,,,I know a foot print when I see one
> 
> I CALL BULLSHIT
> 
> HOW ABOUT YOU KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF THE SCHOOLS TOO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove this is a human foot print:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> prove this isnt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zapata Track
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know you wont watch it
Click to expand...


Cartoons for the Flat Earth groupies.


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How old do you imagine the Earth is?
> 
> First: there were no dinosaurs 500 millions years ago.  There weren't even land animals at that time.
> 
> Second:  They aren't human foot prints.
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> _For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.
> 
> The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock).
> 
> A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.
> 
> This web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the Paluxy controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links boarder aspects of trace fossils, paleontology, and the "creation/evolution" issue. Unless otherwise noted, the articles and illustrations are by myself (Glen Kuban). The site now includes a photo gallery  of dinosaur track sites. Among the recent additions is a review of an alleged stegosaurus carving on a temple in Cambodia, and an article explaining why trace fossils refute "Flood Geology." I welcome comments, questions, and corrections from visitors. Feel free to contact me at gkpaleo at yahoo.com (just replace the "at" with @ and close the spaces; I'm doing this to reduce spam). Since some visitors have asked about my background, I have included a brief bio.  Thanks, and enjoy your visit!_​
> 
> 
> 
> you guys always have some made up bullshit to explain everything that proves you wrong bogus,,,I know a foot print when I see one
> 
> I CALL BULLSHIT
> 
> HOW ABOUT YOU KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF THE SCHOOLS TOO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove this is a human foot print:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> prove this isnt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zapata Track
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know you wont watch it
Click to expand...

Obvious fraud.  Why would anyone remove human 100 million year old fossil footprints from the bedrock?


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> you guys always have some made up bullshit to explain everything that proves you wrong bogus,,,I know a foot print when I see one
> 
> I CALL BULLSHIT
> 
> HOW ABOUT YOU KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF THE SCHOOLS TOO
> 
> 
> 
> Prove this is a human foot print:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> prove this isnt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zapata Track
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know you wont watch it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obvious fraud.  Why would anyone remove human 100 million year old fossil footprints from the bedrock?
Click to expand...



TO PRESERVE THEM AND STUDY THEM


its obvious you didnt watch the video


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove this is a human foot print:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> prove this isnt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zapata Track
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know you wont watch it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obvious fraud.  Why would anyone remove human 100 million year old fossil footprints from the bedrock?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> TO PRESERVE THEM AND STUDY THEM
> 
> 
> its obvious you didnt watch the video
Click to expand...


Wrong.  It's because you can't fake them if they are still attached to the bedrock.  Once a block is removed from the strata, you have destroyed whatever provenance it had.


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> prove this isnt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Zapata Track
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know you wont watch it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obvious fraud.  Why would anyone remove human 100 million year old fossil footprints from the bedrock?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> TO PRESERVE THEM AND STUDY THEM
> 
> 
> its obvious you didnt watch the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's because you can't fake them if they are still attached to the bedrock.  Once a block is removed from the strata, you have destroyed whatever provenance it had.
Click to expand...

not if its documented


and that logic disproves 100% of evolution


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Zapata Track
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you wont watch it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obvious fraud.  Why would anyone remove human 100 million year old fossil footprints from the bedrock?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> TO PRESERVE THEM AND STUDY THEM
> 
> 
> its obvious you didnt watch the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's because you can't fake them if they are still attached to the bedrock.  Once a block is removed from the strata, you have destroyed whatever provenance it had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not if its documented
> 
> 
> and that logic disproves 100% of evolution
Click to expand...

How was it "documented?"  Are there photos of the fossils in place while they are still attached to the bed rock?


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you wont watch it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obvious fraud.  Why would anyone remove human 100 million year old fossil footprints from the bedrock?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> TO PRESERVE THEM AND STUDY THEM
> 
> 
> its obvious you didnt watch the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's because you can't fake them if they are still attached to the bedrock.  Once a block is removed from the strata, you have destroyed whatever provenance it had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not if its documented
> 
> 
> and that logic disproves 100% of evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How was it "documented?"  Are there photos of the fossils in place while they are still attached to the bed rock?
Click to expand...

I think if you went to his museum you could see them,,and did you know the Smithsonian has a block of them that have dino skeletons on them for exhibit???


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obvious fraud.  Why would anyone remove human 100 million year old fossil footprints from the bedrock?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TO PRESERVE THEM AND STUDY THEM
> 
> 
> its obvious you didnt watch the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's because you can't fake them if they are still attached to the bedrock.  Once a block is removed from the strata, you have destroyed whatever provenance it had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not if its documented
> 
> 
> and that logic disproves 100% of evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How was it "documented?"  Are there photos of the fossils in place while they are still attached to the bed rock?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think if you went to his museum you could see them,,and did you know the Smithsonian has a block of them that have dino skeletons on them for exhibit???
Click to expand...

See the photos?  Why aren't they published on the internet?

The Smithsonian has a block of what?

Some fossils, like the one of Archaeopteryx, aren't discovered until a piece of rock is quarried and then split open.  However, it's provenance is fully documented.  No one has contested it.  Numerous other fossils of the same species have been discovered.


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> TO PRESERVE THEM AND STUDY THEM
> 
> 
> its obvious you didnt watch the video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's because you can't fake them if they are still attached to the bedrock.  Once a block is removed from the strata, you have destroyed whatever provenance it had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not if its documented
> 
> 
> and that logic disproves 100% of evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How was it "documented?"  Are there photos of the fossils in place while they are still attached to the bed rock?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think if you went to his museum you could see them,,and did you know the Smithsonian has a block of them that have dino skeletons on them for exhibit???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See the photos?  Why aren't they published on the internet?
> 
> The Smithsonian has a block of what?
> 
> Some fossils, like the one of Archaeopteryx, aren't discovered until a piece of rock is quarried and then split open.  However, it's provenance is fully documented.  No one has contested it.  Numerous other fossils of the same species have been discovered.
Click to expand...

a block of dino prints,,it might be the nature museum

and they are published and I posted a video of them you refuse to watch


----------



## captkaos

Moonglow said:


> For some reason I got this here water well pump that pumps water from under the ground so I proved the flood from Genesis first.



Finally we agree on something there is hope for you yet MOON DUDE. AOC is even more intelligent than these dupes. _*That was hard to say! Now I have to go take a shower I feel dirty!* I use eco friendly products called soap and water, but not water from the "Fountains of the Deep." Just a regular faucet ! _


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's because you can't fake them if they are still attached to the bedrock.  Once a block is removed from the strata, you have destroyed whatever provenance it had.
> 
> 
> 
> not if its documented
> 
> 
> and that logic disproves 100% of evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How was it "documented?"  Are there photos of the fossils in place while they are still attached to the bed rock?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think if you went to his museum you could see them,,and did you know the Smithsonian has a block of them that have dino skeletons on them for exhibit???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See the photos?  Why aren't they published on the internet?
> 
> The Smithsonian has a block of what?
> 
> Some fossils, like the one of Archaeopteryx, aren't discovered until a piece of rock is quarried and then split open.  However, it's provenance is fully documented.  No one has contested it.  Numerous other fossils of the same species have been discovered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a block of dino prints,,it might be the nature museum
> 
> and they are published and I posted a video of them you refuse to watch
Click to expand...

I did watch it.  I saw no pics of these prints in situ.  The prints that had human looking toes were all in detached blocks.  The ones that were in situ did not look the slightest bit human.


----------



## Moonglow

captkaos said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> For some reason I got this here water well pump that pumps water from under the ground so I proved the flood from Genesis first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally we agree on something there is hope for you yet MOON DUDE. AOC is even more intelligent than these dupes. _*That was hard to say! Now I have to go take a shower I feel dirty!* I use eco friendly products called soap and water, but not water from the "Fountains of the Deep." Just a regular faucet ! _
Click to expand...

You use that city water which is used turd flushing liquid?


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> not if its documented
> 
> 
> and that logic disproves 100% of evolution
> 
> 
> 
> How was it "documented?"  Are there photos of the fossils in place while they are still attached to the bed rock?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think if you went to his museum you could see them,,and did you know the Smithsonian has a block of them that have dino skeletons on them for exhibit???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See the photos?  Why aren't they published on the internet?
> 
> The Smithsonian has a block of what?
> 
> Some fossils, like the one of Archaeopteryx, aren't discovered until a piece of rock is quarried and then split open.  However, it's provenance is fully documented.  No one has contested it.  Numerous other fossils of the same species have been discovered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a block of dino prints,,it might be the nature museum
> 
> and they are published and I posted a video of them you refuse to watch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did watch it.  I saw no pics of these prints in situ.  The prints that had human looking toes were all in detached blocks.  The ones that were in situ did not look the slightest bit human.
Click to expand...

then you didnt watch it,,,,because the video was about the paluxy prints and there were several of the prints still in the ground, and he talks at length about the provenance 


dont bullshit a bullshitter


----------



## captkaos

Moonglow said:


> captkaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> For some reason I got this here water well pump that pumps water from under the ground so I proved the flood from Genesis first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally we agree on something there is hope for you yet MOON DUDE. AOC is even more intelligent than these dupes. _*That was hard to say! Now I have to go take a shower I feel dirty!* I use eco friendly products called soap and water, but not water from the "Fountains of the Deep." Just a regular faucet ! _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You use that city water which is used turd flushing liquid?
Click to expand...


No I have a well! And a really sweet filtration system! Can't trust "the man" with something  as important as my water supply. How bout you! Still buying Perrier MOON CRATER?


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How was it "documented?"  Are there photos of the fossils in place while they are still attached to the bed rock?
> 
> 
> 
> I think if you went to his museum you could see them,,and did you know the Smithsonian has a block of them that have dino skeletons on them for exhibit???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See the photos?  Why aren't they published on the internet?
> 
> The Smithsonian has a block of what?
> 
> Some fossils, like the one of Archaeopteryx, aren't discovered until a piece of rock is quarried and then split open.  However, it's provenance is fully documented.  No one has contested it.  Numerous other fossils of the same species have been discovered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a block of dino prints,,it might be the nature museum
> 
> and they are published and I posted a video of them you refuse to watch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did watch it.  I saw no pics of these prints in situ.  The prints that had human looking toes were all in detached blocks.  The ones that were in situ did not look the slightest bit human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then you didnt watch it,,,,because the video was about the paluxy prints and there were several of the prints still in the ground, and he talks at length about the provenance
> 
> 
> dont bullshit a bullshitter
Click to expand...

The ones that were still in the ground didn't look human to me.  They were highly eroded.


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think if you went to his museum you could see them,,and did you know the Smithsonian has a block of them that have dino skeletons on them for exhibit???
> 
> 
> 
> See the photos?  Why aren't they published on the internet?
> 
> The Smithsonian has a block of what?
> 
> Some fossils, like the one of Archaeopteryx, aren't discovered until a piece of rock is quarried and then split open.  However, it's provenance is fully documented.  No one has contested it.  Numerous other fossils of the same species have been discovered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a block of dino prints,,it might be the nature museum
> 
> and they are published and I posted a video of them you refuse to watch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did watch it.  I saw no pics of these prints in situ.  The prints that had human looking toes were all in detached blocks.  The ones that were in situ did not look the slightest bit human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then you didnt watch it,,,,because the video was about the paluxy prints and there were several of the prints still in the ground, and he talks at length about the provenance
> 
> 
> dont bullshit a bullshitter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ones that were still in the ground didn't look human to me.  They were highly eroded.
Click to expand...

ok


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hahaha...did you get all that, people? Let me review:
> 
> When you believe the entire scientific community and all the evidence ever collected over the insane ramblings of a person with nothing but iron aged fairy tales in tow, that is your "Satan filter", causing you to be evil.
> 
> And now you understand why I put nauseating little frauds like Bond on the same shelf with voodoo shamans, snake oil salesmen, and one eyed gypsies willing to teach you tomorrow's lottery numbers. He's a fucking freak just as much as any charlatan that has ever lived. He doesn't get cover just because he is cloaking his freakishness in a major religion .



The truth is it isn't the ENTIRE scientific community as you claim, but the secular or atheist science community.  Thus, you are wrong again.  The secular, i.e. atheist scientists, eliminated their competition -- creation scientists.  Otherwise, we would believe that God created the universe and what is in it as part of scientific theory.  

The evidence is that universe and everything in it is here, so there has to be a cause.  The cause started with space and time when there was no spacetime.  Thus, the cause has to be spaceless and timeless and exist outside our physical world.  The cause cannot be physical because it does not exist in our world, so it has to be spiritual.  Not only that, the spiritual being has to be all powerful and have intelligence in order to create our universe that works the way it does and contains all the stars, moons and planets that continues to expand what seems like infinity as space and time stretches out.  We will die before we find out the end because our lifetimes has already been laid out.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hahaha...did you get all that, people? Let me review:
> 
> When you believe the entire scientific community and all the evidence ever collected over the insane ramblings of a person with nothing but iron aged fairy tales in tow, that is your "Satan filter", causing you to be evil.
> 
> And now you understand why I put nauseating little frauds like Bond on the same shelf with voodoo shamans, snake oil salesmen, and one eyed gypsies willing to teach you tomorrow's lottery numbers. He's a fucking freak just as much as any charlatan that has ever lived. He doesn't get cover just because he is cloaking his freakishness in a major religion .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is it isn't the ENTIRE scientific community as you claim, but the secular or atheist science community.  Thus, you are wrong again.  The secular, i.e. atheist scientists, eliminated their competition -- creation scientists.  Otherwise, we would believe that God created the universe and what is in it as part of scientific theory.
> 
> The evidence is that universe and everything in it is here, so there has to be a cause.  The cause started with space and time when there was no spacetime.  Thus, the cause has to be spaceless and timeless and exist outside our physical world.  The cause cannot be physical because it does not exist in our world, so it has to be spiritual.  Not only that, the spiritual being has to be all powerful and have intelligence in order to create our universe that works the way it does and contains all the stars, moons and planets that continues to expand what seems like infinity as space and time stretches out.  We will die before we find out the end because our lifetimes has already been laid out.
Click to expand...


The fact is that many scientists who are Christians reject so-called "creation science" and the theory of intelligent design, so your claim is false.

Your first cause argument was debunked hundreds of years ago.  If everything has a cause, then God has to have a cause.  Creationists can't get around that.

The term "spiritual" means that it isn't subject to scientific examination.  That means it can't be proven or disproven.  However, logic indicates it's a false claim.


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hahaha...did you get all that, people? Let me review:
> 
> When you believe the entire scientific community and all the evidence ever collected over the insane ramblings of a person with nothing but iron aged fairy tales in tow, that is your "Satan filter", causing you to be evil.
> 
> And now you understand why I put nauseating little frauds like Bond on the same shelf with voodoo shamans, snake oil salesmen, and one eyed gypsies willing to teach you tomorrow's lottery numbers. He's a fucking freak just as much as any charlatan that has ever lived. He doesn't get cover just because he is cloaking his freakishness in a major religion .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is it isn't the ENTIRE scientific community as you claim, but the secular or atheist science community.  Thus, you are wrong again.  The secular, i.e. atheist scientists, eliminated their competition -- creation scientists.  Otherwise, we would believe that God created the universe and what is in it as part of scientific theory.
> 
> The evidence is that universe and everything in it is here, so there has to be a cause.  The cause started with space and time when there was no spacetime.  Thus, the cause has to be spaceless and timeless and exist outside our physical world.  The cause cannot be physical because it does not exist in our world, so it has to be spiritual.  Not only that, the spiritual being has to be all powerful and have intelligence in order to create our universe that works the way it does and contains all the stars, moons and planets that continues to expand what seems like infinity as space and time stretches out.  We will die before we find out the end because our lifetimes has already been laid out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that many scientists who are Christians reject so-called "creation science" and the theory of intelligent design, so your claim is false.
> 
> Your first cause argument was debunked hundreds of years ago.  If everything has a cause, then God has to have a cause.  Creationists can't get around that.
> 
> The term "spiritual" means that it isn't subject to scientific examination.  That means it can't be proven or disproven.  However, logic indicates it's a false claim.
Click to expand...

NO logic doesnt indicate  that


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hahaha...did you get all that, people? Let me review:
> 
> When you believe the entire scientific community and all the evidence ever collected over the insane ramblings of a person with nothing but iron aged fairy tales in tow, that is your "Satan filter", causing you to be evil.
> 
> And now you understand why I put nauseating little frauds like Bond on the same shelf with voodoo shamans, snake oil salesmen, and one eyed gypsies willing to teach you tomorrow's lottery numbers. He's a fucking freak just as much as any charlatan that has ever lived. He doesn't get cover just because he is cloaking his freakishness in a major religion .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is it isn't the ENTIRE scientific community as you claim, but the secular or atheist science community.  Thus, you are wrong again.  The secular, i.e. atheist scientists, eliminated their competition -- creation scientists.  Otherwise, we would believe that God created the universe and what is in it as part of scientific theory.
> 
> The evidence is that universe and everything in it is here, so there has to be a cause.  The cause started with space and time when there was no spacetime.  Thus, the cause has to be spaceless and timeless and exist outside our physical world.  The cause cannot be physical because it does not exist in our world, so it has to be spiritual.  Not only that, the spiritual being has to be all powerful and have intelligence in order to create our universe that works the way it does and contains all the stars, moons and planets that continues to expand what seems like infinity as space and time stretches out.  We will die before we find out the end because our lifetimes has already been laid out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that many scientists who are Christians reject so-called "creation science" and the theory of intelligent design, so your claim is false.
> 
> Your first cause argument was debunked hundreds of years ago.  If everything has a cause, then God has to have a cause.  Creationists can't get around that.
> 
> The term "spiritual" means that it isn't subject to scientific examination.  That means it can't be proven or disproven.  However, logic indicates it's a false claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO logic doesnt indicate  that
Click to expand...

It certainly does.  The "First Cause" argument is obviously false.


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hahaha...did you get all that, people? Let me review:
> 
> When you believe the entire scientific community and all the evidence ever collected over the insane ramblings of a person with nothing but iron aged fairy tales in tow, that is your "Satan filter", causing you to be evil.
> 
> And now you understand why I put nauseating little frauds like Bond on the same shelf with voodoo shamans, snake oil salesmen, and one eyed gypsies willing to teach you tomorrow's lottery numbers. He's a fucking freak just as much as any charlatan that has ever lived. He doesn't get cover just because he is cloaking his freakishness in a major religion .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is it isn't the ENTIRE scientific community as you claim, but the secular or atheist science community.  Thus, you are wrong again.  The secular, i.e. atheist scientists, eliminated their competition -- creation scientists.  Otherwise, we would believe that God created the universe and what is in it as part of scientific theory.
> 
> The evidence is that universe and everything in it is here, so there has to be a cause.  The cause started with space and time when there was no spacetime.  Thus, the cause has to be spaceless and timeless and exist outside our physical world.  The cause cannot be physical because it does not exist in our world, so it has to be spiritual.  Not only that, the spiritual being has to be all powerful and have intelligence in order to create our universe that works the way it does and contains all the stars, moons and planets that continues to expand what seems like infinity as space and time stretches out.  We will die before we find out the end because our lifetimes has already been laid out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that many scientists who are Christians reject so-called "creation science" and the theory of intelligent design, so your claim is false.
> 
> Your first cause argument was debunked hundreds of years ago.  If everything has a cause, then God has to have a cause.  Creationists can't get around that.
> 
> The term "spiritual" means that it isn't subject to scientific examination.  That means it can't be proven or disproven.  However, logic indicates it's a false claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO logic doesnt indicate  that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It certainly does.  The "First Cause" argument is obviously false.
Click to expand...

no its not


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hahaha...did you get all that, people? Let me review:
> 
> When you believe the entire scientific community and all the evidence ever collected over the insane ramblings of a person with nothing but iron aged fairy tales in tow, that is your "Satan filter", causing you to be evil.
> 
> And now you understand why I put nauseating little frauds like Bond on the same shelf with voodoo shamans, snake oil salesmen, and one eyed gypsies willing to teach you tomorrow's lottery numbers. He's a fucking freak just as much as any charlatan that has ever lived. He doesn't get cover just because he is cloaking his freakishness in a major religion .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is it isn't the ENTIRE scientific community as you claim, but the secular or atheist science community.  Thus, you are wrong again.  The secular, i.e. atheist scientists, eliminated their competition -- creation scientists.  Otherwise, we would believe that God created the universe and what is in it as part of scientific theory.
> 
> The evidence is that universe and everything in it is here, so there has to be a cause.  The cause started with space and time when there was no spacetime.  Thus, the cause has to be spaceless and timeless and exist outside our physical world.  The cause cannot be physical because it does not exist in our world, so it has to be spiritual.  Not only that, the spiritual being has to be all powerful and have intelligence in order to create our universe that works the way it does and contains all the stars, moons and planets that continues to expand what seems like infinity as space and time stretches out.  We will die before we find out the end because our lifetimes has already been laid out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that many scientists who are Christians reject so-called "creation science" and the theory of intelligent design, so your claim is false.
> 
> Your first cause argument was debunked hundreds of years ago.  If everything has a cause, then God has to have a cause.  Creationists can't get around that.
> 
> The term "spiritual" means that it isn't subject to scientific examination.  That means it can't be proven or disproven.  However, logic indicates it's a false claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO logic doesnt indicate  that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It certainly does.  The "First Cause" argument is obviously false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no its not
Click to expand...

So who/what created God?


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is it isn't the ENTIRE scientific community as you claim, but the secular or atheist science community.  Thus, you are wrong again.  The secular, i.e. atheist scientists, eliminated their competition -- creation scientists.  Otherwise, we would believe that God created the universe and what is in it as part of scientific theory.
> 
> The evidence is that universe and everything in it is here, so there has to be a cause.  The cause started with space and time when there was no spacetime.  Thus, the cause has to be spaceless and timeless and exist outside our physical world.  The cause cannot be physical because it does not exist in our world, so it has to be spiritual.  Not only that, the spiritual being has to be all powerful and have intelligence in order to create our universe that works the way it does and contains all the stars, moons and planets that continues to expand what seems like infinity as space and time stretches out.  We will die before we find out the end because our lifetimes has already been laid out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that many scientists who are Christians reject so-called "creation science" and the theory of intelligent design, so your claim is false.
> 
> Your first cause argument was debunked hundreds of years ago.  If everything has a cause, then God has to have a cause.  Creationists can't get around that.
> 
> The term "spiritual" means that it isn't subject to scientific examination.  That means it can't be proven or disproven.  However, logic indicates it's a false claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO logic doesnt indicate  that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It certainly does.  The "First Cause" argument is obviously false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no its not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So who/what create God?
Click to expand...

how the heck would I know??


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that many scientists who are Christians reject so-called "creation science" and the theory of intelligent design, so your claim is false.
> 
> Your first cause argument was debunked hundreds of years ago.  If everything has a cause, then God has to have a cause.  Creationists can't get around that.
> 
> The term "spiritual" means that it isn't subject to scientific examination.  That means it can't be proven or disproven.  However, logic indicates it's a false claim.
> 
> 
> 
> NO logic doesnt indicate  that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It certainly does.  The "First Cause" argument is obviously false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no its not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So who/what create God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how the heck would I know??
Click to expand...

It's your theory.  If you don't know, how can you claim it's true?


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO logic doesnt indicate  that
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly does.  The "First Cause" argument is obviously false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no its not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So who/what create God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how the heck would I know??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's your theory.  If you don't know, how can you claim it's true?
Click to expand...

when did I claim fact??? its always been a theory just like evolution

just one problem,,

only one is taught as fact in public schools using tax payer money


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence for God.  Science backs up the Bible regarding porn use.
> 
> "The Bible tells us, in 1 Corinthians 6:18, that sexual sin has negative physical consequences:
> 
> _Escape from sexual immorality. Every sin that a man commits is outside the body. But he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. (MEV)_
> 
> Now, science has confirmed what Gods word has established.
> 
> Regardless of the type of sexual sinpremarital sex, adultery, or viewing pornographyit alters how the human brain functions. Indulged in repeatedly, ones conscience is seared, a physical change in the brain that numbs one to the guilt and conviction of his or her wrongdoing.
> 
> *MORE POWERFUL THAN MORPHINE*
> 
> The producers of the Conquer Seriesa cinematic DVD series that helps men break free from pornography note that when porn is viewed, powerful hormones are released, including:
> 
> 
> oxytocincalled the love hormone, it is typically released when one is hugged or kissed, regulating social interactions, sexual reproduction, and human bonding.
> vasopressinused as medication, it numbs pain.
> This concoction of hormones rewires the brain, giving it the wrong material, luring one deeper into a prison of his or her own making. Its intoxicating, intended to bring loved ones closer and promote mental healing, but instead having the opposite effect and confusing the mind.
> 
> Conquer Series expert contributor Heart to Heart Counseling Center Executive Director Dr. Doug Weiss said:
> 
> _When [you] have a sexual experience, your brains makes these opiates which [are] four times stronger than morphine. Boom! It hits your brain, your brain lights up like a Christmas tree. This is the highest chemical reward your brain gets for anything. Thats why a lot of guys get in trouble, even in ministry. They dont know their brain is defective._
> 
> This way, sexual sin takes a profound toll on the brain, and the rest of the body. The sinner knows watching porn is a shameful act that must be kept secret, yet each time one views it, he or she trusts it more as a result of the pairing and deep mental bond forged by the hormones."
> 
> TruNews with Rick Wiles, Real News, Latest News, Christian News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An Introduction to Biblical Nonsense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People get addicted on porn like drugs.  That is not nonsense.  It sounds you're addicted to nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the other hand, you're addicted to sidestepping and deflection when direct refutation is presented to biblical "science" claims.
> 
> Absurdities of biblical "science" claims are easily refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the most prescribed medicine?  It's pain relief meds and people are wanting the strongest, getting addicted and dying for it.
> 
> Why do we watch porn for?  Pleasure and prurient interest.
> 
> The above chemicals are good in moderation.  _*What argument do you have when they are in excess and not in moderation, i.e. causing one to head towards addiction?*_
> 
> I'm only telling it like it is -- TRUTH.  Your Satan filter has made you see "sidestepping and deflection" and think you have "direct refutation" when you are the one who is WRONG.  Like I have been saying atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.  Otherwise, you would be presenting better arguments by using the scientific method.  None of your theories are observable, testable nor falsifiable while science backs up the Bible.
> 
> You won't be able to answer my question, when I just presented more evidence for the Bible and how science backs it up.  This is ancient text we found and verified and it knows about stuff people do on the internet today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, your appeals to Satan and other ancient fears and superstitious nonsense are yours to resolve.
> 
> The facts are, biological evolution, science, medicine... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars. Further, we actually have repeatable results that confirm the reliability of the scientific method, Your loathing for science, for reason and rationality while living your miserable existence in trembling fear of angry gods is truly pitiable. When it comes to ancient tales and fables, which are demonstrably wrong, the ranting from the hyper-religious   devolve quickly into screeching tirades.
> 
> For all your screeching about “bible science”, it’s obvious you can’t provide a single, specific “scientific fact” from any of the various bibles.
Click to expand...


I have reviewed and found the atheists seem to back Satan and Satan backs them.  For example, no more God because atheist science says so.  The facts are science, medicine, biology were founded by creation scientists, i.e. people who believed in God and that he made the universe and everything in it.  I can only conclude that you are looney or a bad person to believe in lies of Satan.  I have been providing much evidence throughout my posts.  One is we found that the chicken came before the egg in 2017 to put egg on the faces of secular scientists who believed the egg came first.  These people just cannot accept true science because of they believe in false or fake science.  You embarrass yourself in every post, so I will stop replying to you once more.

Just read my previous posts here and you have nothing, while I have provided observable, testable and falsifiable evidence.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hahaha...did you get all that, people? Let me review:
> 
> When you believe the entire scientific community and all the evidence ever collected over the insane ramblings of a person with nothing but iron aged fairy tales in tow, that is your "Satan filter", causing you to be evil.
> 
> And now you understand why I put nauseating little frauds like Bond on the same shelf with voodoo shamans, snake oil salesmen, and one eyed gypsies willing to teach you tomorrow's lottery numbers. He's a fucking freak just as much as any charlatan that has ever lived. He doesn't get cover just because he is cloaking his freakishness in a major religion .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is it isn't the ENTIRE scientific community as you claim, but the secular or atheist science community.  Thus, you are wrong again.  The secular, i.e. atheist scientists, eliminated their competition -- creation scientists.  Otherwise, we would believe that God created the universe and what is in it as part of scientific theory.
> 
> The evidence is that universe and everything in it is here, so there has to be a cause.  The cause started with space and time when there was no spacetime.  Thus, the cause has to be spaceless and timeless and exist outside our physical world.  The cause cannot be physical because it does not exist in our world, so it has to be spiritual.  Not only that, the spiritual being has to be all powerful and have intelligence in order to create our universe that works the way it does and contains all the stars, moons and planets that continues to expand what seems like infinity as space and time stretches out.  We will die before we find out the end because our lifetimes has already been laid out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that many scientists who are Christians reject so-called "creation science" and the theory of intelligent design, so your claim is false.
> 
> Your first cause argument was debunked hundreds of years ago.  If everything has a cause, then God has to have a cause.  Creationists can't get around that.
> 
> The term "spiritual" means that it isn't subject to scientific examination.  That means it can't be proven or disproven.  However, logic indicates it's a false claim.
Click to expand...


You're just making assertions as usual.  Intelligent design is from the Discovery Institute and has nothing to do with creation science..  Creation science is based on the Bible and theories derived from it.  You do not even know the difference.

First cause was not debunked ever or else nothing could begin to exist because it would have to have a cause.  God does not have a cause because he is timeless, spaceless, immaterial and is uncaused.  Secular scientists believed in something eternal such as the universe, i.e. uncaused, decades ago but were proven wrong.  Thus, you are wrong once more.  You just can't figure things out for yourself bripat9643 .

Show me where your definition of "spiritual" is.  You are once more talking out of your rear end.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hahaha...did you get all that, people? Let me review:
> 
> When you believe the entire scientific community and all the evidence ever collected over the insane ramblings of a person with nothing but iron aged fairy tales in tow, that is your "Satan filter", causing you to be evil.
> 
> And now you understand why I put nauseating little frauds like Bond on the same shelf with voodoo shamans, snake oil salesmen, and one eyed gypsies willing to teach you tomorrow's lottery numbers. He's a fucking freak just as much as any charlatan that has ever lived. He doesn't get cover just because he is cloaking his freakishness in a major religion .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is it isn't the ENTIRE scientific community as you claim, but the secular or atheist science community.  Thus, you are wrong again.  The secular, i.e. atheist scientists, eliminated their competition -- creation scientists.  Otherwise, we would believe that God created the universe and what is in it as part of scientific theory.
> 
> The evidence is that universe and everything in it is here, so there has to be a cause.  The cause started with space and time when there was no spacetime.  Thus, the cause has to be spaceless and timeless and exist outside our physical world.  The cause cannot be physical because it does not exist in our world, so it has to be spiritual.  Not only that, the spiritual being has to be all powerful and have intelligence in order to create our universe that works the way it does and contains all the stars, moons and planets that continues to expand what seems like infinity as space and time stretches out.  We will die before we find out the end because our lifetimes has already been laid out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that many scientists who are Christians reject so-called "creation science" and the theory of intelligent design, so your claim is false.
> 
> Your first cause argument was debunked hundreds of years ago.  If everything has a cause, then God has to have a cause.  Creationists can't get around that.
> 
> The term "spiritual" means that it isn't subject to scientific examination.  That means it can't be proven or disproven.  However, logic indicates it's a false claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just making assertions as usual.  Intelligent design is from the Discovery Institute and has nothing to do with creation science..  Creation science is based on the Bible and theories derived from it.  You do not even know the difference.
> 
> First cause was not debunked ever or else nothing could begin to exist because it would have to have a cause.  God does not have a cause because he is timeless, spaceless, immaterial and is uncaused.  Secular scientists believed in something eternal such as the universe, i.e. uncaused, decades ago but were proven wrong.  Thus, you are wrong once more.  You just can't figure things out for yourself bripat9643 .
> 
> Show me where your definition of "spiritual" is.
Click to expand...

Intelligent design is based on the Bible.  You make that obvious because you start quoting the Bible whenever anyone ridicules your theories.

Everything has to have a cause except God?  How is that logic?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> The truth is it isn't the ENTIRE scientific community as you claim,


Wrong. It is the entire scientific community. It's an accepted fact. That is why none 9f your fake "creation scientists" are actual scientists . Just shut up you little weasel....and don't forget to declare victory over the entire scientific community on your way out the door...go to church, where you belong, and stay out of the science topics.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is it isn't the ENTIRE scientific community as you claim,
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. It is the entire scientific community. It's an accepted fact. That is why none 9f your fake "creation scientists" are actual scientists . Just shut up you little weasel....and don't forget to declare victory over the entire scientific community on your way out the door...go to church, where you belong, and stay out of the science topics.
Click to expand...

TROLL


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bripat9643 said:


> Everything has to have a cause except God? How is that logic?


Exactly. These frauds have an adorable little game rigged for themselves. You have to come up with a cause for everything, but they don't. You have to produce evidence, but they don't. You have to explain how animals appeared and disappeared throughout history, but they don't. You have to explain radiometric dating in excruciating detail, dealing with all manner of horseshit talking points. But they are allowed to assert, without good evidence argument, that their zombie King is real and sits at the right hand of Yahweh. And , if you should dare ridicule such absurd, unsupported magical bullshit, then you are "militant" and "hate god" and are "obsessed". (See: ding the lying liar)

Oh, and they get to declare victory over the s cientific community, despite having zero science on their side.

So how much time are you willing to spend trying  to convince insane people that they are insane? Me...zero


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything has to have a cause except God? How is that logic?
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. These frauds have an adorable little game rigged for themselves. You have to come up with a cause for everything, but they don't. You have to produce evidence, but they don't. You have to explain how animals appeared and disappeared throughout history, but they don't. You have to explain radiometric dating in excruciating detail, dealing with all manner of horseshit talking points. But they are allowed to assert, without good evidence argument, that their zombie King is real and sits at the right hand of Yahweh. And , if you should dare ridicule such absurd, unsupported magical bullshit, then you are "militant" and "hate god" and are "obsessed". (See: ding the lying liar)
> 
> Oh, and they get to declare victory over the s cientific community, despite having zero science on their side.
> 
> So how much time are you willing to spend trying  to convince insane people that they are insane? Me...zero
Click to expand...

TROLL
WHEN YOU CANT REFUTE THE MESSAGE ATTACK THE MESSENGER,,,

ALINSKY 101


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything has to have a cause except God? How is that logic?
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. These frauds have an adorable little game rigged for themselves. You have to come up with a cause for everything, but they don't. You have to produce evidence, but they don't. You have to explain how animals appeared and disappeared throughout history, but they don't. You have to explain radiometric dating in excruciating detail, dealing with all manner of horseshit talking points. But they are allowed to assert, without good evidence argument, that their zombie King is real and sits at the right hand of Yahweh. And , if you should dare ridicule such absurd, unsupported magical bullshit, then you are "militant" and "hate god" and are "obsessed". (See: ding the lying liar)
> 
> Oh, and they get to declare victory over the s cientific community, despite having zero science on their side.
> 
> So how much time are you willing to spend trying  to convince insane people that they are insane? Me...zero
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> TROLL
> WHEN YOU CANT REFUTE THE MESSAGE ATTACK THE MESSENGER,,,
> 
> ALINSKY 101
Click to expand...

He's attacking the ridiculous things you say.


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly does.  The "First Cause" argument is obviously false.
> 
> 
> 
> no its not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So who/what create God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how the heck would I know??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's your theory.  If you don't know, how can you claim it's true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when did I claim fact??? its always been a theory just like evolution
> 
> just one problem,,
> 
> only one is taught as fact in public schools using tax payer money
Click to expand...

Evolution has a massive base of evidence to support it.  ID has only the Bible.


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> no its not
> 
> 
> 
> So who/what create God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how the heck would I know??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's your theory.  If you don't know, how can you claim it's true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when did I claim fact??? its always been a theory just like evolution
> 
> just one problem,,
> 
> only one is taught as fact in public schools using tax payer money
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution has a massive base of evidence to support it.  ID has only the Bible.
Click to expand...

no evolution  doesnt,,,


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who/what create God?
> 
> 
> 
> how the heck would I know??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's your theory.  If you don't know, how can you claim it's true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when did I claim fact??? its always been a theory just like evolution
> 
> just one problem,,
> 
> only one is taught as fact in public schools using tax payer money
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution has a massive base of evidence to support it.  ID has only the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no evolution  doesnt,,,
Click to expand...


I wouldn't expect your madrassah has a strong science program.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> An Introduction to Biblical Nonsense
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People get addicted on porn like drugs.  That is not nonsense.  It sounds you're addicted to nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the other hand, you're addicted to sidestepping and deflection when direct refutation is presented to biblical "science" claims.
> 
> Absurdities of biblical "science" claims are easily refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the most prescribed medicine?  It's pain relief meds and people are wanting the strongest, getting addicted and dying for it.
> 
> Why do we watch porn for?  Pleasure and prurient interest.
> 
> The above chemicals are good in moderation.  _*What argument do you have when they are in excess and not in moderation, i.e. causing one to head towards addiction?*_
> 
> I'm only telling it like it is -- TRUTH.  Your Satan filter has made you see "sidestepping and deflection" and think you have "direct refutation" when you are the one who is WRONG.  Like I have been saying atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.  Otherwise, you would be presenting better arguments by using the scientific method.  None of your theories are observable, testable nor falsifiable while science backs up the Bible.
> 
> You won't be able to answer my question, when I just presented more evidence for the Bible and how science backs it up.  This is ancient text we found and verified and it knows about stuff people do on the internet today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, your appeals to Satan and other ancient fears and superstitious nonsense are yours to resolve.
> 
> The facts are, biological evolution, science, medicine... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars. Further, we actually have repeatable results that confirm the reliability of the scientific method, Your loathing for science, for reason and rationality while living your miserable existence in trembling fear of angry gods is truly pitiable. When it comes to ancient tales and fables, which are demonstrably wrong, the ranting from the hyper-religious   devolve quickly into screeching tirades.
> 
> For all your screeching about “bible science”, it’s obvious you can’t provide a single, specific “scientific fact” from any of the various bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have reviewed and found the atheists seem to back Satan and Satan backs them.  For example, no more God because atheist science says so.  The facts are science, medicine, biology were founded by creation scientists, i.e. people who believed in God and that he made the universe and everything in it.  I can only conclude that you are looney or a bad person to believe in lies of Satan.  I have been providing much evidence throughout my posts.  One is we found that the chicken came before the egg in 2017 to put egg on the faces of secular scientists who believed the egg came first.  These people just cannot accept true science because of they believe in false or fake science.  You embarrass yourself in every post, so I will stop replying to you once more.
> 
> Just read my previous posts here and you have nothing, while I have provided observable, testable and falsifiable evidence.
Click to expand...


I’m sure your “review” of Satan and his backing of atheists was thorough but I’m curious to know why you wastred your time? I’m also curious to know why you spend an inordinate amount of time cowering in abject fear of mythical entities which are simply superstitious nonsense. Why would you choose to live your life governed by fear and superstition? Absent rigid and unquestioning adherence to a book that you worship as an alleged “divine word” from the gods, your superstitions have everything to do with an existence based upon living in fear and trembling before the angry deity. As much as you would prefer to resist it, it is secular thinking and science which can illuminate those dark recesses of the mind and allow you to shed fear and ignorance of imaginary demons.

The facts are not that science, medicine, biology were founded by creation scientists.

The facts are;The earlier attempts by fundie christians to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.

In the same way, when creationists find themselves unable to deal with the multiple independent sources of evidence for evolution that include the fossils, the genetic comparisons, comparative anatomy, biogeography, ecology etc., they retreat further and further into really angry outbursts as evidenced by the sweaty, chest-heaving antics of the ID'iot / creationists. But how does that help them?

Praying to supernatural entities, worshipping plastic statues on dashboards, etc. All very rational. Hallelujah down the street if you want, teach your children about flying winged men in nightgowns, fat naked babies playing harps, chariots of fire cruising through the clouds, that seas part and books predict the end of the world, teach them all of these things if you want to, believe in them all if you must, but please, oh please stop trying to force these beliefs on others and please don’t confuse the supernatural with reason and rationality.

Lastly, I have read your posts and there is not a single, verifiable bit of evidence presented for any of your various gods, demons or other supernatural inventions.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> Intelligent design is based on the Bible. You make that obvious because you start quoting the Bible whenever anyone ridicules your theories.
> 
> Everything has to have a cause except God? How is that logic?



There is intelligence behind God's design, but creation is far different from ID.  Are you that dense to not be able to tell the difference?  How is ID based on the Bible since you claim that, but Discovery Institute does not.  Perhaps you are that thick.

I already explained; It's similar to an eternal universe.  God is eternal.  He has no beginning nor end.  That's logical.  He is spiritual, supernatural and all powerful as explained in the Book of Genesis.  It's not my fault that you cannot comprehend God's nature.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I already explained; It's similar to an eternal universe. God is eternal. He has no beginning nor end.


That doesn't explain anything. When you point at something and say, "god did it!", you haven't explained anything at all. It's literally the opposite of an explanation. It substitutes one mystery for another .


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> it is secular thinking and science which can illuminate those dark recesses of the mind and allow you to shed fear and ignorance of imaginary demons.



You haven't provided any examples or evidence of this.



Hollie said:


> The facts are not that science, medicine, biology were founded by creation scientists.
> 
> The facts are;The earlier attempts by fundie christians to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.



What you claim as "not" facts is wrong.  I'm tired of posting scientific links and repeating myself.



Hollie said:


> multiple independent sources of evidence for evolution that include the fossils, the genetic comparisons, comparative anatomy, biogeography, ecology etc., they retreat further and further into really angry outbursts as evidenced by the sweaty, chest-heaving antics of the ID'iot / creationists. But how does that help them?



Finally, something that could be construed as an argument.  The fossil evidence is lacking.  For example, there is very little transitional fossils.  The humans from monkeys fossils do not show human and monkey proto creatures.  The small cranial structure shows they were likely chimps/apes or their hybrids.  And how could they _evolve_ when today's apes/chimps are not bipedal nor human-like.  They still have the small cranial structures and are not bipedal.  They are living fossils.  Furthermore, fossils are tied to layers of the Earth and secular science thinks the layers are chronological.  The layers are not based on chronology, but location.  The names of the layers refer to location and not time.  Also, your claim of multiple independent sources do not include creation scientists.  You ignored my argument regarding that!

As for the rest, you veer off into religion and avoid the creation science which I have patiently explained to you over and over again.  Stop with the ridiculous assertions.  Evolution is based on faith-based beliefs such as long-time, common ancestor (tree of life) and descent with modification.  The latter happens in microevolution, but does not happen with macroevolution such as humans from apes and birds from dinosaurs.  Those are myths that evolutionists believe on faith-based beliefs.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Wrong. It is the entire scientific community. It's an accepted fact. That is why none 9f your fake "creation scientists" are actual scientists . Just shut up you little weasel....and don't forget to declare victory over the entire scientific community on your way out the door...go to church, where you belong, and stay out of the science topics.



Back to ad hominem attacks so I win what little debate you put up again.

Here's a list of creation scientists, so it makes you look very stupid, stupid, stupid with your silly post.

Creation scientists - creation.com

Where is your list of secular/atheist scientists?  What have they done that is observable, testable and falsifiable?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already explained; It's similar to an eternal universe. God is eternal. He has no beginning nor end.
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't explain anything. When you point at something and say, "god did it!", you haven't explained anything at all. It's literally the opposite of an explanation. It substitutes one mystery for another .
Click to expand...


Wrong again.  I did not say God did it.  He said that he did it.  He was the only eyewitness.  We can verify some of it through the fine tuning facts.  The fact that spacetime exists and continues to expand is more hard evidence.  OTOH you haven't presented any argument to refute what I have stated.

You claim it's one mystery for another, but there is not mystery with the Christian God since we have the Bible that explains what he did.  You can't deny the carbon.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is secular thinking and science which can illuminate those dark recesses of the mind and allow you to shed fear and ignorance of imaginary demons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't provided any examples or evidence of this.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The facts are not that science, medicine, biology were founded by creation scientists.
> 
> The facts are;The earlier attempts by fundie christians to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you claim as "not" facts is wrong.  I'm tired of posting scientific links and repeating myself.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> multiple independent sources of evidence for evolution that include the fossils, the genetic comparisons, comparative anatomy, biogeography, ecology etc., they retreat further and further into really angry outbursts as evidenced by the sweaty, chest-heaving antics of the ID'iot / creationists. But how does that help them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finally, something that could be construed as an argument.  The fossil evidence is lacking.  For example, there is very little transitional fossils.  The humans from monkeys fossils do not show human and monkey proto creatures.  The small cranial structure shows they were likely chimps/apes or their hybrids.  And how could they _evolve_ when today's apes/chimps are not bipedal nor human-like.  They still have the small cranial structures and are not bipedal.  They are living fossils.  Furthermore, fossils are tied to layers of the Earth and secular science thinks the layers are chronological.  The layers are not based on chronology, but location.  The names of the layers refer to location and not time.  Also, your claim of multiple independent sources do not include creation scientists.  You ignored my argument regarding that!
> 
> As for the rest, you veer off into religion and avoid the creation science which I have patiently explained to you over and over again.  Stop with the ridiculous assertions.  Evolution is based on faith-based beliefs such as long-time, common ancestor (tree of life) and descent with modification.  The latter happens in microevolution, but does not happen with macroevolution such as humans from apes and birds from dinosaurs.  Those are myths that evolutionists believe on faith-based beliefs.
Click to expand...



The best evidence I can provide toward science illuminating those dark recesses of the mind would be the waning influence of Christianity and the end of the Dark Ages.
Western civilization emerged from the Dark Ages only when free thinkers, (scientists, mathematicians, writers, poets, musicians), were able to challenge the religious authorities and examine the world in terms of events and circumstances that are not held to an inflexible, rigorous dogma that is often in irreconcilable contradiction to the natural world. 

A typical ID'iot / Flat Earth Society claim from creation ministries is "The fossil evidence is lacking?. Lacking for what? If you want evidence for transitional fossils, there is data available.

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ


the evolution of new species is an observed phenomenon.  we have examples of the transitional forms between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds, and between apes and humans. So you are quite demonstrably wrong in baldly asserting that such evolution cannot occur. And the laws of probability, properly understood and applied, provide no objection to evolution at all. 

Your Christian fundie based ignorance regarding biological evolution is fascinating. And beside it being irrelevant. I will pass on the following: 

evolution does not require “sudden appearances.” The “haphazard creation” of a multi-billion nucleotide DNA molecule is found nowhere in any evolutionary theory, and it is not necessary. Evolution is an incremental stepwise process guided by natural selection. So the only relevant probability is that of any given point mutation on a DNA molecule being more advantageous than any other. 

Since such advantageous mutations are then multiplied by thousands or millions for each generation, allowing for multiple millions of “dice throws” over several generations, the probability is actually so high as to be a sure bet. 

In actuality,* the only theory that requires the sudden appearance of a fully formed DNA molecule with nothing before it is (surprise, surprise) supernatural creation.*


You again retreat to the imposed ignorance of the “humans from momkeys”, nonsense. This is a canard still used by the silly intelligent design groupies who have no grounding in science. Meaning, of course that the ‘monkeys into human beings’ displays a fundamental lack of understanding regarding biological evolution. Man was never a monkey. Man was never descended from a monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.

For starters, you should have noticed that some of these fossils are more than mere skulls 
And the skulls themselves are not merely "larger and smaller." Several of them are exactly what you asked for (half-way between apes and humans) in every respect from size of the brain, to shape of the teeth, to how they join the vertebral column. 
And more importantly, we find them in a very particular order. The older ones are always more apelike than the younger ones. The intermediate ones are all of an intermediate age. 

And finally, we find them associated in exactly the right order with progressively more sophisticated technologies. Some of these “monkeys that have become extinct” used fire, made art and buried their dead. How monkey-like does that really sound to you? 

So here is your problem; you asked for examples of transitional fossils. I gave you examples. They are a just small representative of the thousands of fossils we have that creationists insist could not possible exist. 

But, tough luck. They do exist, and those of us who have actually studied the evidence are now left to simply shake our heads at your discomfort.

And yes it is true that Christian fundies posing as “scientists” are excluded from the science debate, as they should. When they have nothing of substance to offer, that would make them irrelevant.

There is a segment of the world (primarily fundie Christians and Muslims) who will forever insist that such evidence for biological evolution and common descent does not exist, regardless of the evidence itself. 

There is another segment of the world that does not care one way or the other. 

But the relevant segment of the world consists of those who are intimately familiar with the actual evidence. These include the overwhelming majority of practicing scientists in all fields related to biology. And they documented biological evolution to be a demonstrated fact. They have the evidence that fundie christians and muslims deny. 

So let's not pretend that you fundies have any deep familiarity with the evidence.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent design is based on the Bible. You make that obvious because you start quoting the Bible whenever anyone ridicules your theories.
> 
> Everything has to have a cause except God? How is that logic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is intelligence behind God's design, but creation is far different from ID.  Are you that dense to not be able to tell the difference?  How is ID based on the Bible since you claim that, but Discovery Institute does not.  Perhaps you are that thick.
> 
> I already explained; It's similar to an eternal universe.  God is eternal.  He has no beginning nor end.  That's logical.  He is spiritual, supernatural and all powerful as explained in the Book of Genesis.  It's not my fault that you cannot comprehend God's nature.
Click to expand...

If you admit that not everything requires a cause, then how can you claim the universe requires a cause?  Either everything requires a cause, or it doesn't.  The first cause argument is a contradiction.

Also, you claim ID is not the same as creationism, but you just resorted to the Bible to justify ID.


----------



## bripat9643

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is secular thinking and science which can illuminate those dark recesses of the mind and allow you to shed fear and ignorance of imaginary demons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't provided any examples or evidence of this.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The facts are not that science, medicine, biology were founded by creation scientists.
> 
> The facts are;The earlier attempts by fundie christians to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you claim as "not" facts is wrong.  I'm tired of posting scientific links and repeating myself.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> multiple independent sources of evidence for evolution that include the fossils, the genetic comparisons, comparative anatomy, biogeography, ecology etc., they retreat further and further into really angry outbursts as evidenced by the sweaty, chest-heaving antics of the ID'iot / creationists. But how does that help them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finally, something that could be construed as an argument.  The fossil evidence is lacking.  For example, there is very little transitional fossils.  The humans from monkeys fossils do not show human and monkey proto creatures.  The small cranial structure shows they were likely chimps/apes or their hybrids.  And how could they _evolve_ when today's apes/chimps are not bipedal nor human-like.  They still have the small cranial structures and are not bipedal.  They are living fossils.  Furthermore, fossils are tied to layers of the Earth and secular science thinks the layers are chronological.  The layers are not based on chronology, but location.  The names of the layers refer to location and not time.  Also, your claim of multiple independent sources do not include creation scientists.  You ignored my argument regarding that!
> 
> As for the rest, you veer off into religion and avoid the creation science which I have patiently explained to you over and over again.  Stop with the ridiculous assertions.  Evolution is based on faith-based beliefs such as long-time, common ancestor (tree of life) and descent with modification.  The latter happens in microevolution, but does not happen with macroevolution such as humans from apes and birds from dinosaurs.  Those are myths that evolutionists believe on faith-based beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The best evidence I can provide toward science illuminating those dark recesses of the mind would be the waning influence of Christianity and the end of the Dark Ages.
> Western civilization emerged from the Dark Ages only when free thinkers, (scientists, mathematicians, writers, poets, musicians), were able to challenge the religious authorities and examine the world in terms of events and circumstances that are not held to an inflexible, rigorous dogma that is often in irreconcilable contradiction to the natural world.
> 
> A typical ID'iot / Flat Earth Society claim from creation ministries is "The fossil evidence is lacking?. Lacking for what? If you want evidence for transitional fossils, there is data available.
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> 
> the evolution of new species is an observed phenomenon.  we have examples of the transitional forms between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds, and between apes and humans. So you are quite demonstrably wrong in baldly asserting that such evolution cannot occur. And the laws of probability, properly understood and applied, provide no objection to evolution at all.
> 
> Your Christian fundie based ignorance regarding biological evolution is fascinating. And beside it being irrelevant. I will pass on the following:
> 
> evolution does not require “sudden appearances.” The “haphazard creation” of a multi-billion nucleotide DNA molecule is found nowhere in any evolutionary theory, and it is not necessary. Evolution is an incremental stepwise process guided by natural selection. So the only relevant probability is that of any given point mutation on a DNA molecule being more advantageous than any other.
> 
> Since such advantageous mutations are then multiplied by thousands or millions for each generation, allowing for multiple millions of “dice throws” over several generations, the probability is actually so high as to be a sure bet.
> 
> In actuality,* the only theory that requires the sudden appearance of a fully formed DNA molecule with nothing before it is (surprise, surprise) supernatural creation.*
> 
> 
> You again retreat to the imposed ignorance of the “humans from momkeys”, nonsense. This is a canard still used by the silly intelligent design groupies who have no grounding in science. Meaning, of course that the ‘monkeys into human beings’ displays a fundamental lack of understanding regarding biological evolution. Man was never a monkey. Man was never descended from a monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.
> 
> For starters, you should have noticed that some of these fossils are more than mere skulls
> And the skulls themselves are not merely "larger and smaller." Several of them are exactly what you asked for (half-way between apes and humans) in every respect from size of the brain, to shape of the teeth, to how they join the vertebral column.
> And more importantly, we find them in a very particular order. The older ones are always more apelike than the younger ones. The intermediate ones are all of an intermediate age.
> 
> And finally, we find them associated in exactly the right order with progressively more sophisticated technologies. Some of these “monkeys that have become extinct” used fire, made art and buried their dead. How monkey-like does that really sound to you?
> 
> So here is your problem; you asked for examples of transitional fossils. I gave you examples. They are a just small representative of the thousands of fossils we have that creationists insist could not possible exist.
> 
> But, tough luck. They do exist, and those of us who have actually studied the evidence are now left to simply shake our heads at your discomfort.
> 
> And yes it is true that Christian fundies posing as “scientists” are excluded from the science debate, as they should. When they have nothing of substance to offer, that would make them irrelevant.
> 
> There is a segment of the world (primarily fundie Christians and Muslims) who will forever insist that such evidence for biological evolution and common descent does not exist, regardless of the evidence itself.
> 
> There is another segment of the world that does not care one way or the other.
> 
> But the relevant segment of the world consists of those who are intimately familiar with the actual evidence. These include the overwhelming majority of practicing scientists in all fields related to biology. And they documented biological evolution to be a demonstrated fact. They have the evidence that fundie christians and muslims deny.
> 
> So let's not pretend that you fundies have any deep familiarity with the evidence.
Click to expand...


----------



## Wyatt earp

Hollie said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> People get addicted on porn like drugs.  That is not nonsense.  It sounds you're addicted to nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, you're addicted to sidestepping and deflection when direct refutation is presented to biblical "science" claims.
> 
> Absurdities of biblical "science" claims are easily refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the most prescribed medicine?  It's pain relief meds and people are wanting the strongest, getting addicted and dying for it.
> 
> Why do we watch porn for?  Pleasure and prurient interest.
> 
> The above chemicals are good in moderation.  _*What argument do you have when they are in excess and not in moderation, i.e. causing one to head towards addiction?*_
> 
> I'm only telling it like it is -- TRUTH.  Your Satan filter has made you see "sidestepping and deflection" and think you have "direct refutation" when you are the one who is WRONG.  Like I have been saying atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.  Otherwise, you would be presenting better arguments by using the scientific method.  None of your theories are observable, testable nor falsifiable while science backs up the Bible.
> 
> You won't be able to answer my question, when I just presented more evidence for the Bible and how science backs it up.  This is ancient text we found and verified and it knows about stuff people do on the internet today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, your appeals to Satan and other ancient fears and superstitious nonsense are yours to resolve.
> 
> The facts are, biological evolution, science, medicine... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars. Further, we actually have repeatable results that confirm the reliability of the scientific method, Your loathing for science, for reason and rationality while living your miserable existence in trembling fear of angry gods is truly pitiable. When it comes to ancient tales and fables, which are demonstrably wrong, the ranting from the hyper-religious   devolve quickly into screeching tirades.
> 
> For all your screeching about “bible science”, it’s obvious you can’t provide a single, specific “scientific fact” from any of the various bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> keep on telling yourself that holly.....................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) In contrast, many ancient myths describe the universe, not as being created, but as being organized from existing chaos. The Babylonians believed that the gods that gave birth to the universe came from two oceans. Other legends say that the universe came from a giant egg.
> 
> 
> The universe is governed day-to-day by rational natural laws, not by the whims of deities. (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25) Myths from around the world teach that humans are helpless before the unpredictable and sometimes merciless acts of the gods.
> 
> 
> The earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7) Many ancient peoples believed that the world was a flat disk supported by a giant or an animal, such as a buffalo or a turtle.
> 
> 
> Rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6) The ancient Greeks thought that rivers were fed by underground ocean water, and this idea persisted into the 18th century.
> 
> 
> The mountains rise and fall, and today’s mountains were once under the ocean. (Psalm 104:6, 8) In contrast, several myths say that the mountains were created in their current form by the gods.
> 
> 
> Sanitary practices protect health. The Law given to the nation of Israel included regulations for washing after touching a dead body, quarantining those with infectious disease, and disposing of human waste safely. (Leviticus 11:28; 13:1-5; Deuteronomy 23:13) By contrast, one of the Egyptian remedies in use when these commands were given called for applying to an open wound a mixture that included human excrement.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, nothing in that long cut and paste speaks to anything but vague generalities.
Click to expand...



That's your retort, fucking nothing?

What else is new from you heathens ..



.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> People get addicted on porn like drugs.  That is not nonsense.  It sounds you're addicted to nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, you're addicted to sidestepping and deflection when direct refutation is presented to biblical "science" claims.
> 
> Absurdities of biblical "science" claims are easily refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the most prescribed medicine?  It's pain relief meds and people are wanting the strongest, getting addicted and dying for it.
> 
> Why do we watch porn for?  Pleasure and prurient interest.
> 
> The above chemicals are good in moderation.  _*What argument do you have when they are in excess and not in moderation, i.e. causing one to head towards addiction?*_
> 
> I'm only telling it like it is -- TRUTH.  Your Satan filter has made you see "sidestepping and deflection" and think you have "direct refutation" when you are the one who is WRONG.  Like I have been saying atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.  Otherwise, you would be presenting better arguments by using the scientific method.  None of your theories are observable, testable nor falsifiable while science backs up the Bible.
> 
> You won't be able to answer my question, when I just presented more evidence for the Bible and how science backs it up.  This is ancient text we found and verified and it knows about stuff people do on the internet today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, your appeals to Satan and other ancient fears and superstitious nonsense are yours to resolve.
> 
> The facts are, biological evolution, science, medicine... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars. Further, we actually have repeatable results that confirm the reliability of the scientific method, Your loathing for science, for reason and rationality while living your miserable existence in trembling fear of angry gods is truly pitiable. When it comes to ancient tales and fables, which are demonstrably wrong, the ranting from the hyper-religious   devolve quickly into screeching tirades.
> 
> For all your screeching about “bible science”, it’s obvious you can’t provide a single, specific “scientific fact” from any of the various bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> keep on telling yourself that holly.....................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) In contrast, many ancient myths describe the universe, not as being created, but as being organized from existing chaos. The Babylonians believed that the gods that gave birth to the universe came from two oceans. Other legends say that the universe came from a giant egg.
> 
> 
> The universe is governed day-to-day by rational natural laws, not by the whims of deities. (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25) Myths from around the world teach that humans are helpless before the unpredictable and sometimes merciless acts of the gods.
> 
> 
> The earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7) Many ancient peoples believed that the world was a flat disk supported by a giant or an animal, such as a buffalo or a turtle.
> 
> 
> Rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6) The ancient Greeks thought that rivers were fed by underground ocean water, and this idea persisted into the 18th century.
> 
> 
> The mountains rise and fall, and today’s mountains were once under the ocean. (Psalm 104:6, 8) In contrast, several myths say that the mountains were created in their current form by the gods.
> 
> 
> Sanitary practices protect health. The Law given to the nation of Israel included regulations for washing after touching a dead body, quarantining those with infectious disease, and disposing of human waste safely. (Leviticus 11:28; 13:1-5; Deuteronomy 23:13) By contrast, one of the Egyptian remedies in use when these commands were given called for applying to an open wound a mixture that included human excrement.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha,yet another charlatan,retro-fitting cherry picked nonsense after the fact. What of all the biblical nonsense proven to be bullshit?
> 
> And where is all the knowledge and successful predictions from this batch of magical bullshit? Where were the biblical physicists, describingthe big bang, in the year 1500? Why is it you charlatans have to wait until this stuff os discovered? Why aren't you using the Bible to discover it?
> 
> Funny how the Bible allegedly teaches us about all this...and yet every one of you frauds had to wait for hard working scientists to dedicate their lives to extracting this knowledge, before any of you could wrap it in the veneer of your magical bullshit....
Click to expand...



After the fact I just gave you a few among many that you can't refuse ..


And you retard tye big bang theory was made by a Catholic priest.



Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, RAS Associate was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, mathematician, astronomer, and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain. He proposed on theoretical grounds that the universe is expanding, which was observationally confirmed soon afterwards by Edwin Hubble. Wikipedia


----------



## Wyatt earp

Hollie said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> People get addicted on porn like drugs.  That is not nonsense.  It sounds you're addicted to nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, you're addicted to sidestepping and deflection when direct refutation is presented to biblical "science" claims.
> 
> Absurdities of biblical "science" claims are easily refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the most prescribed medicine?  It's pain relief meds and people are wanting the strongest, getting addicted and dying for it.
> 
> Why do we watch porn for?  Pleasure and prurient interest.
> 
> The above chemicals are good in moderation.  _*What argument do you have when they are in excess and not in moderation, i.e. causing one to head towards addiction?*_
> 
> I'm only telling it like it is -- TRUTH.  Your Satan filter has made you see "sidestepping and deflection" and think you have "direct refutation" when you are the one who is WRONG.  Like I have been saying atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.  Otherwise, you would be presenting better arguments by using the scientific method.  None of your theories are observable, testable nor falsifiable while science backs up the Bible.
> 
> You won't be able to answer my question, when I just presented more evidence for the Bible and how science backs it up.  This is ancient text we found and verified and it knows about stuff people do on the internet today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, your appeals to Satan and other ancient fears and superstitious nonsense are yours to resolve.
> 
> The facts are, biological evolution, science, medicine... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars. Further, we actually have repeatable results that confirm the reliability of the scientific method, Your loathing for science, for reason and rationality while living your miserable existence in trembling fear of angry gods is truly pitiable. When it comes to ancient tales and fables, which are demonstrably wrong, the ranting from the hyper-religious   devolve quickly into screeching tirades.
> 
> For all your screeching about “bible science”, it’s obvious you can’t provide a single, specific “scientific fact” from any of the various bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> keep on telling yourself that holly.....................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) In contrast, many ancient myths describe the universe, not as being created, but as being organized from existing chaos. The Babylonians believed that the gods that gave birth to the universe came from two oceans. Other legends say that the universe came from a giant egg.
> 
> 
> The universe is governed day-to-day by rational natural laws, not by the whims of deities. (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25) Myths from around the world teach that humans are helpless before the unpredictable and sometimes merciless acts of the gods.
> 
> 
> The earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7) Many ancient peoples believed that the world was a flat disk supported by a giant or an animal, such as a buffalo or a turtle.
> 
> 
> Rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6) The ancient Greeks thought that rivers were fed by underground ocean water, and this idea persisted into the 18th century.
> 
> 
> The mountains rise and fall, and today’s mountains were once under the ocean. (Psalm 104:6, 8) In contrast, several myths say that the mountains were created in their current form by the gods.
> 
> 
> Sanitary practices protect health. The Law given to the nation of Israel included regulations for washing after touching a dead body, quarantining those with infectious disease, and disposing of human waste safely. (Leviticus 11:28; 13:1-5; Deuteronomy 23:13) By contrast, one of the Egyptian remedies in use when these commands were given called for applying to an open wound a mixture that included human excrement.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, nothing in that long cut and paste speaks to anything but vague generalities.
Click to expand...



Cave linked to John the Baptist


*Cave linked to John the Baptist*
By Karin Laub
The Associated Press
KIBBUTZ TZUBA, Israel — Archaeologists think they’ve found a cave where John the Baptist baptized many of his followers — basing their theory on thousands of shards from ritual jugs, a stone used for foot cleansing and wall carvings that tell the story of the biblical preacher.

Only a few artifacts linked to New Testament figures have ever been found in the Holy Land, and the cave is potentially a major discovery in biblical archaeology.

“John the Baptist, who was just a figure from the Gospels, now comes to life,” British archaeologist Shimon Gibson said during an exclusive tour of the cave given to The Associated Press.


----------



## Hollie

bear513 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, you're addicted to sidestepping and deflection when direct refutation is presented to biblical "science" claims.
> 
> Absurdities of biblical "science" claims are easily refuted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the most prescribed medicine?  It's pain relief meds and people are wanting the strongest, getting addicted and dying for it.
> 
> Why do we watch porn for?  Pleasure and prurient interest.
> 
> The above chemicals are good in moderation.  _*What argument do you have when they are in excess and not in moderation, i.e. causing one to head towards addiction?*_
> 
> I'm only telling it like it is -- TRUTH.  Your Satan filter has made you see "sidestepping and deflection" and think you have "direct refutation" when you are the one who is WRONG.  Like I have been saying atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.  Otherwise, you would be presenting better arguments by using the scientific method.  None of your theories are observable, testable nor falsifiable while science backs up the Bible.
> 
> You won't be able to answer my question, when I just presented more evidence for the Bible and how science backs it up.  This is ancient text we found and verified and it knows about stuff people do on the internet today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, your appeals to Satan and other ancient fears and superstitious nonsense are yours to resolve.
> 
> The facts are, biological evolution, science, medicine... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars. Further, we actually have repeatable results that confirm the reliability of the scientific method, Your loathing for science, for reason and rationality while living your miserable existence in trembling fear of angry gods is truly pitiable. When it comes to ancient tales and fables, which are demonstrably wrong, the ranting from the hyper-religious   devolve quickly into screeching tirades.
> 
> For all your screeching about “bible science”, it’s obvious you can’t provide a single, specific “scientific fact” from any of the various bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> keep on telling yourself that holly.....................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) In contrast, many ancient myths describe the universe, not as being created, but as being organized from existing chaos. The Babylonians believed that the gods that gave birth to the universe came from two oceans. Other legends say that the universe came from a giant egg.
> 
> 
> The universe is governed day-to-day by rational natural laws, not by the whims of deities. (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25) Myths from around the world teach that humans are helpless before the unpredictable and sometimes merciless acts of the gods.
> 
> 
> The earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7) Many ancient peoples believed that the world was a flat disk supported by a giant or an animal, such as a buffalo or a turtle.
> 
> 
> Rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6) The ancient Greeks thought that rivers were fed by underground ocean water, and this idea persisted into the 18th century.
> 
> 
> The mountains rise and fall, and today’s mountains were once under the ocean. (Psalm 104:6, 8) In contrast, several myths say that the mountains were created in their current form by the gods.
> 
> 
> Sanitary practices protect health. The Law given to the nation of Israel included regulations for washing after touching a dead body, quarantining those with infectious disease, and disposing of human waste safely. (Leviticus 11:28; 13:1-5; Deuteronomy 23:13) By contrast, one of the Egyptian remedies in use when these commands were given called for applying to an open wound a mixture that included human excrement.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, nothing in that long cut and paste speaks to anything but vague generalities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Cave linked to John the Baptist
> 
> 
> *Cave linked to John the Baptist*
> By Karin Laub
> The Associated Press
> KIBBUTZ TZUBA, Israel — Archaeologists think they’ve found a cave where John the Baptist baptized many of his followers — basing their theory on thousands of shards from ritual jugs, a stone used for foot cleansing and wall carvings that tell the story of the biblical preacher.
> 
> Only a few artifacts linked to New Testament figures have ever been found in the Holy Land, and the cave is potentially a major discovery in biblical archaeology.
> 
> “John the Baptist, who was just a figure from the Gospels, now comes to life,” British archaeologist Shimon Gibson said during an exclusive tour of the cave given to The Associated Press.
Click to expand...



And this is relevant, how?


----------



## Hollie

bear513 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, you're addicted to sidestepping and deflection when direct refutation is presented to biblical "science" claims.
> 
> Absurdities of biblical "science" claims are easily refuted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the most prescribed medicine?  It's pain relief meds and people are wanting the strongest, getting addicted and dying for it.
> 
> Why do we watch porn for?  Pleasure and prurient interest.
> 
> The above chemicals are good in moderation.  _*What argument do you have when they are in excess and not in moderation, i.e. causing one to head towards addiction?*_
> 
> I'm only telling it like it is -- TRUTH.  Your Satan filter has made you see "sidestepping and deflection" and think you have "direct refutation" when you are the one who is WRONG.  Like I have been saying atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.  Otherwise, you would be presenting better arguments by using the scientific method.  None of your theories are observable, testable nor falsifiable while science backs up the Bible.
> 
> You won't be able to answer my question, when I just presented more evidence for the Bible and how science backs it up.  This is ancient text we found and verified and it knows about stuff people do on the internet today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, your appeals to Satan and other ancient fears and superstitious nonsense are yours to resolve.
> 
> The facts are, biological evolution, science, medicine... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars. Further, we actually have repeatable results that confirm the reliability of the scientific method, Your loathing for science, for reason and rationality while living your miserable existence in trembling fear of angry gods is truly pitiable. When it comes to ancient tales and fables, which are demonstrably wrong, the ranting from the hyper-religious   devolve quickly into screeching tirades.
> 
> For all your screeching about “bible science”, it’s obvious you can’t provide a single, specific “scientific fact” from any of the various bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> keep on telling yourself that holly.....................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) In contrast, many ancient myths describe the universe, not as being created, but as being organized from existing chaos. The Babylonians believed that the gods that gave birth to the universe came from two oceans. Other legends say that the universe came from a giant egg.
> 
> 
> The universe is governed day-to-day by rational natural laws, not by the whims of deities. (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25) Myths from around the world teach that humans are helpless before the unpredictable and sometimes merciless acts of the gods.
> 
> 
> The earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7) Many ancient peoples believed that the world was a flat disk supported by a giant or an animal, such as a buffalo or a turtle.
> 
> 
> Rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6) The ancient Greeks thought that rivers were fed by underground ocean water, and this idea persisted into the 18th century.
> 
> 
> The mountains rise and fall, and today’s mountains were once under the ocean. (Psalm 104:6, 8) In contrast, several myths say that the mountains were created in their current form by the gods.
> 
> 
> Sanitary practices protect health. The Law given to the nation of Israel included regulations for washing after touching a dead body, quarantining those with infectious disease, and disposing of human waste safely. (Leviticus 11:28; 13:1-5; Deuteronomy 23:13) By contrast, one of the Egyptian remedies in use when these commands were given called for applying to an open wound a mixture that included human excrement.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, nothing in that long cut and paste speaks to anything but vague generalities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's your retort, fucking nothing?
> 
> What else is new from you heathens ..
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Oh, my. Another angry thumper.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Hollie said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the most prescribed medicine?  It's pain relief meds and people are wanting the strongest, getting addicted and dying for it.
> 
> Why do we watch porn for?  Pleasure and prurient interest.
> 
> The above chemicals are good in moderation.  _*What argument do you have when they are in excess and not in moderation, i.e. causing one to head towards addiction?*_
> 
> I'm only telling it like it is -- TRUTH.  Your Satan filter has made you see "sidestepping and deflection" and think you have "direct refutation" when you are the one who is WRONG.  Like I have been saying atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.  Otherwise, you would be presenting better arguments by using the scientific method.  None of your theories are observable, testable nor falsifiable while science backs up the Bible.
> 
> You won't be able to answer my question, when I just presented more evidence for the Bible and how science backs it up.  This is ancient text we found and verified and it knows about stuff people do on the internet today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, your appeals to Satan and other ancient fears and superstitious nonsense are yours to resolve.
> 
> The facts are, biological evolution, science, medicine... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars. Further, we actually have repeatable results that confirm the reliability of the scientific method, Your loathing for science, for reason and rationality while living your miserable existence in trembling fear of angry gods is truly pitiable. When it comes to ancient tales and fables, which are demonstrably wrong, the ranting from the hyper-religious   devolve quickly into screeching tirades.
> 
> For all your screeching about “bible science”, it’s obvious you can’t provide a single, specific “scientific fact” from any of the various bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> keep on telling yourself that holly.....................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) In contrast, many ancient myths describe the universe, not as being created, but as being organized from existing chaos. The Babylonians believed that the gods that gave birth to the universe came from two oceans. Other legends say that the universe came from a giant egg.
> 
> 
> The universe is governed day-to-day by rational natural laws, not by the whims of deities. (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25) Myths from around the world teach that humans are helpless before the unpredictable and sometimes merciless acts of the gods.
> 
> 
> The earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7) Many ancient peoples believed that the world was a flat disk supported by a giant or an animal, such as a buffalo or a turtle.
> 
> 
> Rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6) The ancient Greeks thought that rivers were fed by underground ocean water, and this idea persisted into the 18th century.
> 
> 
> The mountains rise and fall, and today’s mountains were once under the ocean. (Psalm 104:6, 8) In contrast, several myths say that the mountains were created in their current form by the gods.
> 
> 
> Sanitary practices protect health. The Law given to the nation of Israel included regulations for washing after touching a dead body, quarantining those with infectious disease, and disposing of human waste safely. (Leviticus 11:28; 13:1-5; Deuteronomy 23:13) By contrast, one of the Egyptian remedies in use when these commands were given called for applying to an open wound a mixture that included human excrement.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, nothing in that long cut and paste speaks to anything but vague generalities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's your retort, fucking nothing?
> 
> What else is new from you heathens ..
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my. Another angry thumper.
Click to expand...



Thumper???


call me Micheal the arch angel bitch, now do you have something to refute me on?



btw, the only ones who can read the bible and comprehend it is the ones who have the holy spirit in them, you heathens just take it out of context


*2 Corinthians 4:4  (NIV)The God of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ. 
*






English Standard Version
In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Berean Study Bible
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Berean Literal Bible
in whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, so as for not to beam forth the illumination of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is _the_ image of God.

New American Standard Bible 
in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

King James Bible
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Christian Standard Bible
In their case, the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Contemporary English Version
The god who rules this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers. They cannot see the light, which is the good news about our glorious Christ, who shows what God is like.

Good News Translation
They do not believe, because their minds have been kept in the dark by the evil god of this world. He keeps them from seeing the light shining on them, the light that comes from the Good News about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
In their case, the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

International Standard Version
In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe to keep them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of the Messiah, who is the image of God.

NET Bible
among whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of those who do not believe so they would not see the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God.

New Heart English Bible
in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, to prevent the light shining from the Good News of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Those whose intellects The God of this world has blinded, because they do not believe, lest the light of The Gospel of the glory of The Messiah, who is the image of God, should dawn upon them.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
The god of this world has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. As a result, they don't see the light of the Good News about Christ's glory. It is Christ who is God's image.

New American Standard 1977 
in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Jubilee Bible 2000
In whom the god of this age has blinded the understanding of those who do not believe, that the light of the gospel of the glory of the Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine in them.

King James 2000 Bible
In whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of them who believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

American King James Version
In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine to them.

American Standard Version
in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them .

Douay-Rheims Bible
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

Darby Bible Translation
in whom the god of this world has blinded the thoughts of the unbelieving, so that the radiancy of the glad tidings of the glory of the Christ, who is [the] image of God, should not shine forth [for them].

English Revised Version
in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them.

Webster's Bible Translation
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them who believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine to them.

Weymouth New Testament
in whom the god of this present age has blinded their unbelieving minds so as to shut out the sunshine of the Good News of the glory of the Christ, who is the image of God.

World English Bible
in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the Good News of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn on them.

Young's Literal Translation
in whom the god of this age did blind the minds of the unbelieving, that there doth not shine forth to them the enlightening of the good news of the glory of the Christ, who is the image of God;


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> You haven't provided any examples or evidence of this.


Yes he has, you liar. Many times. I specifically remember , for instance, the example of modern germ theory being presented directly to you. You religious nutters used to think demons caused sickness. Now you know pathogens can and do. But you , no doubt, ignored this direct and total refutation of your embarrassing bullshit to prance and preen like the little charlatan peacock you are.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bear513 said:


> now do you have something to refute me on?


I directly refuted your desperate nonsense, and you ignored it. You will do the same with him. You are just putting on a little dog and pony show...to soothe yourself...


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> now do you have something to refute me on?
> 
> 
> 
> I directly refuted your desperate nonsense, and you ignored it. You will do the same with him. You are just putting on a little dog and pony show...to soothe yourself...
Click to expand...

NO YOU DIDNT,,,TROLL


----------



## Hollie

bear513 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, your appeals to Satan and other ancient fears and superstitious nonsense are yours to resolve.
> 
> The facts are, biological evolution, science, medicine... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars. Further, we actually have repeatable results that confirm the reliability of the scientific method, Your loathing for science, for reason and rationality while living your miserable existence in trembling fear of angry gods is truly pitiable. When it comes to ancient tales and fables, which are demonstrably wrong, the ranting from the hyper-religious   devolve quickly into screeching tirades.
> 
> For all your screeching about “bible science”, it’s obvious you can’t provide a single, specific “scientific fact” from any of the various bibles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> keep on telling yourself that holly.....................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) In contrast, many ancient myths describe the universe, not as being created, but as being organized from existing chaos. The Babylonians believed that the gods that gave birth to the universe came from two oceans. Other legends say that the universe came from a giant egg.
> 
> 
> The universe is governed day-to-day by rational natural laws, not by the whims of deities. (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25) Myths from around the world teach that humans are helpless before the unpredictable and sometimes merciless acts of the gods.
> 
> 
> The earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7) Many ancient peoples believed that the world was a flat disk supported by a giant or an animal, such as a buffalo or a turtle.
> 
> 
> Rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6) The ancient Greeks thought that rivers were fed by underground ocean water, and this idea persisted into the 18th century.
> 
> 
> The mountains rise and fall, and today’s mountains were once under the ocean. (Psalm 104:6, 8) In contrast, several myths say that the mountains were created in their current form by the gods.
> 
> 
> Sanitary practices protect health. The Law given to the nation of Israel included regulations for washing after touching a dead body, quarantining those with infectious disease, and disposing of human waste safely. (Leviticus 11:28; 13:1-5; Deuteronomy 23:13) By contrast, one of the Egyptian remedies in use when these commands were given called for applying to an open wound a mixture that included human excrement.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, nothing in that long cut and paste speaks to anything but vague generalities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's your retort, fucking nothing?
> 
> What else is new from you heathens ..
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my. Another angry thumper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thumper???
> 
> 
> call me Micheal the arch angel bitch, now do you have something to refute me on?
> 
> 
> 
> btw, the only ones who can read the bible and comprehend it is the ones who have the holy spirit in them, you heathens just take it out of context
> 
> 
> *2 Corinthians 4:4  (NIV)The God of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> English Standard Version
> In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
> 
> Berean Study Bible
> The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
> 
> Berean Literal Bible
> in whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, so as for not to beam forth the illumination of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is _the_ image of God.
> 
> New American Standard Bible
> in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
> 
> King James Bible
> In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
> 
> Christian Standard Bible
> In their case, the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
> 
> Contemporary English Version
> The god who rules this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers. They cannot see the light, which is the good news about our glorious Christ, who shows what God is like.
> 
> Good News Translation
> They do not believe, because their minds have been kept in the dark by the evil god of this world. He keeps them from seeing the light shining on them, the light that comes from the Good News about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.
> 
> Holman Christian Standard Bible
> In their case, the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
> 
> International Standard Version
> In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe to keep them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of the Messiah, who is the image of God.
> 
> NET Bible
> among whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of those who do not believe so they would not see the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God.
> 
> New Heart English Bible
> in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, to prevent the light shining from the Good News of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
> 
> Aramaic Bible in Plain English
> Those whose intellects The God of this world has blinded, because they do not believe, lest the light of The Gospel of the glory of The Messiah, who is the image of God, should dawn upon them.
> 
> GOD'S WORD® Translation
> The god of this world has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. As a result, they don't see the light of the Good News about Christ's glory. It is Christ who is God's image.
> 
> New American Standard 1977
> in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
> 
> Jubilee Bible 2000
> In whom the god of this age has blinded the understanding of those who do not believe, that the light of the gospel of the glory of the Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine in them.
> 
> King James 2000 Bible
> In whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of them who believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
> 
> American King James Version
> In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine to them.
> 
> American Standard Version
> in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them .
> 
> Douay-Rheims Bible
> In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.
> 
> Darby Bible Translation
> in whom the god of this world has blinded the thoughts of the unbelieving, so that the radiancy of the glad tidings of the glory of the Christ, who is [the] image of God, should not shine forth [for them].
> 
> English Revised Version
> in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them.
> 
> Webster's Bible Translation
> In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them who believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine to them.
> 
> Weymouth New Testament
> in whom the god of this present age has blinded their unbelieving minds so as to shut out the sunshine of the Good News of the glory of the Christ, who is the image of God.
> 
> World English Bible
> in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the Good News of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn on them.
> 
> Young's Literal Translation
> in whom the god of this age did blind the minds of the unbelieving, that there doth not shine forth to them the enlightening of the good news of the glory of the Christ, who is the image of God;
Click to expand...


You should duct tape you bibles into a double wide for some serious, angry xtian thumping.


----------



## LittleNipper

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> prove this isnt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Zapata Track
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know you wont watch it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obvious fraud.  Why would anyone remove human 100 million year old fossil footprints from the bedrock?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> TO PRESERVE THEM AND STUDY THEM
> 
> 
> its obvious you didnt watch the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's because you can't fake them if they are still attached to the bedrock.  Once a block is removed from the strata, you have destroyed whatever provenance it had.
Click to expand...

So, how exactly does your hypothesis reflect on the removal of fossils from their surrounding strata? Does this not then destroy whatever provenance that they had according to what your BELIEVE?


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence for God.  Science backs up the Bible regarding porn use.
> 
> "The Bible tells us, in 1 Corinthians 6:18, that sexual sin has negative physical consequences:
> 
> _Escape from sexual immorality. Every sin that a man commits is outside the body. But he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. (MEV)_
> 
> Now, science has confirmed what Gods word has established.
> 
> Regardless of the type of sexual sinpremarital sex, adultery, or viewing pornographyit alters how the human brain functions. Indulged in repeatedly, ones conscience is seared, a physical change in the brain that numbs one to the guilt and conviction of his or her wrongdoing.
> 
> *MORE POWERFUL THAN MORPHINE*
> 
> The producers of the Conquer Seriesa cinematic DVD series that helps men break free from pornography note that when porn is viewed, powerful hormones are released, including:
> 
> 
> oxytocincalled the love hormone, it is typically released when one is hugged or kissed, regulating social interactions, sexual reproduction, and human bonding.
> vasopressinused as medication, it numbs pain.
> This concoction of hormones rewires the brain, giving it the wrong material, luring one deeper into a prison of his or her own making. Its intoxicating, intended to bring loved ones closer and promote mental healing, but instead having the opposite effect and confusing the mind.
> 
> Conquer Series expert contributor Heart to Heart Counseling Center Executive Director Dr. Doug Weiss said:
> 
> _When [you] have a sexual experience, your brains makes these opiates which [are] four times stronger than morphine. Boom! It hits your brain, your brain lights up like a Christmas tree. This is the highest chemical reward your brain gets for anything. Thats why a lot of guys get in trouble, even in ministry. They dont know their brain is defective._
> 
> This way, sexual sin takes a profound toll on the brain, and the rest of the body. The sinner knows watching porn is a shameful act that must be kept secret, yet each time one views it, he or she trusts it more as a result of the pairing and deep mental bond forged by the hormones."
> 
> TruNews with Rick Wiles, Real News, Latest News, Christian News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An Introduction to Biblical Nonsense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People get addicted on porn like drugs.  That is not nonsense.  It sounds you're addicted to nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the other hand, you're addicted to sidestepping and deflection when direct refutation is presented to biblical "science" claims.
> 
> Absurdities of biblical "science" claims are easily refuted.
Click to expand...

 Actually, they are covered up and disregarded. They are not visited and investigated but simply denied! It's a political thing.

Those in power want to remain in command and not face competition that will upset their personal fields of study. It's human nature. What professor wishes to admit his years of work is founded on a wrong premise. Namely, GOD doesn't exist and the decent of man must be accepted.

And then there is the whole education debacle of how does one present INTELLIGENT DESIGN in an atmosphere of atheistic denial? The two are diametrically incomparable. To allow students the ability to choose between the opposing ideologies cannot be accomplished in an atmosphere that cannot permit any discussions of GOD because of an arbitrary divide that says that there is a separation between STATE and church ---- which OBVIOUSLY demonstrates that the STATE is manipulating public education and not the parents, not he community, nor the educators.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Actually, they are covered up and disregarded. They are not visited and investigated but simply denied!


haha... such embarrassing, stupid nonsense.  oh no, it can't be that there is just no good science whatsoever is evidence for your magical horseshit... it HAS to be that ALL of it is sequestered in a vast conspiracy of the entire global scientific community!

Think of the absurdity of your claim.  think about, just for a second, how fucking stupid this is.


----------



## bripat9643

LittleNipper said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Zapata Track
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you wont watch it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obvious fraud.  Why would anyone remove human 100 million year old fossil footprints from the bedrock?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> TO PRESERVE THEM AND STUDY THEM
> 
> 
> its obvious you didnt watch the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's because you can't fake them if they are still attached to the bedrock.  Once a block is removed from the strata, you have destroyed whatever provenance it had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, how exactly does your hypothesis reflect on the removal of fossils from their surrounding strata? Does this not then destroy whatever provenance that they had according to what your BELIEVE?
Click to expand...

When fossil dinosaurs are excavated, each bone is photographed in situ and the location is fully documented.  The bones have to be excavated in order to see them all and to reconstruct the skeleton of the animal.  Generally, foot prints are not excavated because their location is important information. When you excavate fossil footprints you destroy a lot of important information.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And YES! There is scientific proof that the entire earth was once covered in water and this is from a secular group nonetheless:  Early Earth 'was covered in water' | Metro News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, your frantic claim to "proof" is based upon a study, that has not undergone peer review.
> 
> Secondly, did you read what was in the article?
> 
> ".... billions of years ago the Earth’s deep mantle was 200C hotter than it is today."
> 
> Billions of years ago directly refutes the ID'iot / creationist claim to a biblical 6,000 year old earth.
> 
> Oops.
Click to expand...

ONE: So what is stopping you from reviewing it? It's been around for quite a while. 

TWO: My idea was to demonstrate that indeed there is PROOF that shows that the entire earth was once underwater. This flies in the face of ALL those who say --- "No, there isn't enough water!" --- "No, there is no evidence!" --- "No, because I'm told by my professor something different."

THREE: I don't believe in calling people I disagree with idiots. Who wants to be labeled an IDIOT!  Let's go into some other field of study... Let's keep our religious insights to ourselves... Let's simply nod our heads and agree with the instructors to get through the course --- don't buck the system! This is not an education! This is indoctrination through threats and insults!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> My idea was to demonstrate that indeed there is PROOF that shows that the entire earth was once underwater.


And your evidence was an article that plainly stated that most,not all, of the earth was underwater.  You are a fraud.  A shameless liar.


----------



## LittleNipper

bripat9643 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you wont watch it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obvious fraud.  Why would anyone remove human 100 million year old fossil footprints from the bedrock?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> TO PRESERVE THEM AND STUDY THEM
> 
> 
> its obvious you didnt watch the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's because you can't fake them if they are still attached to the bedrock.  Once a block is removed from the strata, you have destroyed whatever provenance it had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, how exactly does your hypothesis reflect on the removal of fossils from their surrounding strata? Does this not then destroy whatever provenance that they had according to what your BELIEVE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When fossil dinosaurs are excavated, each bone is photographed in situ and the location is fully documented.  The bones have to be excavated in order to see them all and to reconstruct the skeleton of the animal.  Generally, foot prints are not excavated because their location is important information. When you excavate fossil footprints you destroy a lot of important information.
Click to expand...

And so they record the evidence, take their photos, and present their hypothesis. What makes you believe they are not as diligent as any other professional. Do I perceive bias on your part? Creationists cannot be bias and yet "evolutionists" can be?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> And so they record the evidence, take their photos, and present their hypothesis.


And then you examine the evidence in light of all the other evidence. You forgot that part. And all the evidence points in the same direction. Oh yeah, that's why you "forgot" that other part.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> My idea was to demonstrate that indeed there is PROOF that shows that the entire earth was once underwater.
> 
> 
> 
> And your evidence was an article that plainly stated that most,not all, of the earth was underwater.  You are a fraud.  A shameless liar.
Click to expand...

They say that maybe 2% was not covered but they are not absolutely positive ---- unlike yourself.


----------



## bripat9643

LittleNipper said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obvious fraud.  Why would anyone remove human 100 million year old fossil footprints from the bedrock?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TO PRESERVE THEM AND STUDY THEM
> 
> 
> its obvious you didnt watch the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's because you can't fake them if they are still attached to the bedrock.  Once a block is removed from the strata, you have destroyed whatever provenance it had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, how exactly does your hypothesis reflect on the removal of fossils from their surrounding strata? Does this not then destroy whatever provenance that they had according to what your BELIEVE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When fossil dinosaurs are excavated, each bone is photographed in situ and the location is fully documented.  The bones have to be excavated in order to see them all and to reconstruct the skeleton of the animal.  Generally, foot prints are not excavated because their location is important information. When you excavate fossil footprints you destroy a lot of important information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so they record the evidence, take their photos, and present their hypothesis. What makes you believe they are not as diligent as any other professional. Do I perceive bias on your part? Creationists cannot be bias and yet "evolutionists" can be?
Click to expand...

How us the photos of the footprints in situ.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> They say that maybe 2% was not covered but they are not absolutely positive ---- unlike yourself.


You're confused again. I think it may be possible that the earth was once completely covered with water.

You are the one claiming with absolute certainty that it was.  So, of the two of us, only one of us is "absolutely positive" of anything. So you just kind lied right there, didn't you?

And you claimed to demonstrate proof that the earth was once completely covered by presenting an article that says it was likely not. So that was another lie.


----------



## bripat9643

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> My idea was to demonstrate that indeed there is PROOF that shows that the entire earth was once underwater.
> 
> 
> 
> And your evidence was an article that plainly stated that most,not all, of the earth was underwater.  You are a fraud.  A shameless liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They say that maybe 2% was not covered but they are not absolutely positive ---- unlike yourself.
Click to expand...

4 billion years ago, not 6000 years ago.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence for God.  Science backs up the Bible regarding porn use.
> 
> "The Bible tells us, in 1 Corinthians 6:18, that sexual sin has negative physical consequences:
> 
> _Escape from sexual immorality. Every sin that a man commits is outside the body. But he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. (MEV)_
> 
> Now, science has confirmed what Gods word has established.
> 
> Regardless of the type of sexual sinpremarital sex, adultery, or viewing pornographyit alters how the human brain functions. Indulged in repeatedly, ones conscience is seared, a physical change in the brain that numbs one to the guilt and conviction of his or her wrongdoing.
> 
> *MORE POWERFUL THAN MORPHINE*
> 
> The producers of the Conquer Seriesa cinematic DVD series that helps men break free from pornography note that when porn is viewed, powerful hormones are released, including:
> 
> 
> oxytocincalled the love hormone, it is typically released when one is hugged or kissed, regulating social interactions, sexual reproduction, and human bonding.
> vasopressinused as medication, it numbs pain.
> This concoction of hormones rewires the brain, giving it the wrong material, luring one deeper into a prison of his or her own making. Its intoxicating, intended to bring loved ones closer and promote mental healing, but instead having the opposite effect and confusing the mind.
> 
> Conquer Series expert contributor Heart to Heart Counseling Center Executive Director Dr. Doug Weiss said:
> 
> _When [you] have a sexual experience, your brains makes these opiates which [are] four times stronger than morphine. Boom! It hits your brain, your brain lights up like a Christmas tree. This is the highest chemical reward your brain gets for anything. Thats why a lot of guys get in trouble, even in ministry. They dont know their brain is defective._
> 
> This way, sexual sin takes a profound toll on the brain, and the rest of the body. The sinner knows watching porn is a shameful act that must be kept secret, yet each time one views it, he or she trusts it more as a result of the pairing and deep mental bond forged by the hormones."
> 
> TruNews with Rick Wiles, Real News, Latest News, Christian News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An Introduction to Biblical Nonsense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People get addicted on porn like drugs.  That is not nonsense.  It sounds you're addicted to nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the other hand, you're addicted to sidestepping and deflection when direct refutation is presented to biblical "science" claims.
> 
> Absurdities of biblical "science" claims are easily refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, they are covered up and disregarded. They are not visited and investigated but simply denied! It's a political thing.
> 
> Those in power want to remain in command and not face competition that will upset their personal fields of study. It's human nature. What professor wishes to admit his years of work is founded on a wrong premise. Namely, GOD doesn't exist and the decent of man must be accepted.
> 
> And then there is the whole education debacle of how does one present INTELLIGENT DESIGN in an atmosphere of atheistic denial? The two are diametrically incomparable. To allow students the ability to choose between the opposing ideologies cannot be accomplished in an atmosphere that cannot permit any discussions of GOD because of an arbitrary divide that says that there is a separation between STATE and church ---- which OBVIOUSLY demonstrates that the STATE is manipulating public education and not the parents, not he community, nor the educators.
Click to expand...


I don’t think conspiracy theories are really helpful. 

So, what professors are actually looking to admit their error regarding science and admit Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu exist? I don’t believe Hindus have any propaganda about the descent of man.

Biblical science” claims are not covered up by the relevant science community, they’re just accepted as religious claims absent any corroboration. Their is nothing that prevents Christian ministries from presenting their evidence for supernaturalism to the journal _Nature_, for example to allow such evidence to be subjected to peer review. but that leaves the supernaturalists with some obvious problems.

There is no arbitrary divide as it relates to separation of church and state. The reasons for such separation are a matter of constitutional law and have served to protect this country from becoming a wasteland of religious intolerance like some islsmic backwater. I suspect you would want to force your religious beliefs into the public school curriculum and that is simply not going to happen. You are free to discuss your gods with all the other folks discussing their competing versions of gods. You just can’t bring those various gods into the school curriculum.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> I don’t believe Hindus have any propaganda about the descent of man.


They have their own creationist myths. But very few of them are silly enough to believe them over evolution:

*"
According to the ‘Darwin Survey’, Indians, with 37% 
(sample size= 909), topped in the list of countries with the 
portion of adults who opinionated that evolutionary theories 
alone be taught in the school. For the question “To what extent 
do you agree or disagree that it is possible to believe in a God 
and still hold the view that life on earth, including human life, 
evolved over time as a result of natural selection?", Indians 
topped the list, with 85% affirmative responses. For the question 
“To what extent do you agree or disagree that enough scientific 
evidence exists to support Charles Darwin’s Theory of 
Evolution”, Indians again topped the list, with 77% affirmative 
responses. However, this survey tested no finer variables, 
including state of domicile, gender, educational level, 
occupation, religiosity, politics, etc."*

F Bast, 2018


----------



## rightwinger

Does that mean we can’t dig to China?


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> Does that mean we can’t dig to China?


Sure, you can dig to China.   Get started.


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you wont watch it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obvious fraud.  Why would anyone remove human 100 million year old fossil footprints from the bedrock?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> TO PRESERVE THEM AND STUDY THEM
> 
> 
> its obvious you didnt watch the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's because you can't fake them if they are still attached to the bedrock.  Once a block is removed from the strata, you have destroyed whatever provenance it had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, how exactly does your hypothesis reflect on the removal of fossils from their surrounding strata? Does this not then destroy whatever provenance that they had according to what your BELIEVE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When fossil dinosaurs are excavated, each bone is photographed in situ and the location is fully documented.  The bones have to be excavated in order to see them all and to reconstruct the skeleton of the animal.  Generally, foot prints are not excavated because their location is important information. When you excavate fossil footprints you destroy a lot of important information.
Click to expand...



 that is exactly how the footprints were documented,,and if they left them they would get eroded by the water,,if you watch the video you would know that,

and what info is destroyed???

its just open rock around them


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> They say that maybe 2% was not covered but they are not absolutely positive ---- unlike yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> You're confused again. I think it may be possible that the earth was once completely covered with water.
> 
> You are the one claiming with absolute certainty that it was.  So, of the two of us, only one of us is "absolutely positive" of anything. So you just kind lied right there, didn't you?
> 
> And you claimed to demonstrate proof that the earth was once completely covered by presenting an article that says it was likely not. So that was another lie.
Click to expand...

you are a liar and a troll,,,he never said that


----------



## The Professor

cnm said:


> How come you don't link your quotes? Afraid of context?



I have some quotes for you. However, you must know that just because Einstein is considered a genius in some areas of math and science does not prove that he is an expert in other disciplines including religion.

"Why do you write to me, 'God should punish the English'? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of his children for their numerous stupidities, for which he himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only his non-existence could excuse him" ( The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Collected and Edited by Aice Calaprice, p. 201).

“Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.” (Ibid, p. 202).

“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings  (Ibid, p. 204).

“I cannot conceive of a personal Gods who would directly influence the actions of individuals...My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we can comprehend of the knowable world. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God” (Ibid, p. 204).

“The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events...He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes...A man's ethical behavior should be based effectively on sympathy, education and social relationships; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained be fear of punishment and hope of reward after death” (Ibid, pp. 205, 206).

“I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of a kind we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual who survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts” (Ibid, p. 207).

“If one purges all subsequent additions from the original teachings of the Prophets and Christianity, especially those of the priests, one is left with a pedagogy that is capable of curing all the social ills of mankind” (Ibid, pp. 209, 210).

“You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the religiosity of the naive man. For the later, God is a being from whose care one hopes to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling similar to that of a child for its father” (Ibid., p. 210).

“The main source of present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal god” (Ibid., p. 213).

“In their struggle for ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God; that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past has placed such vast power in the hands of priests”(Ibid., p. 213).

“No idea is conceived in our mind independent of our five senses [i.e., no idea is divinely inspired]” (Ibid., p. 215).

“I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it” (Ibid., p. 217).

“I am a religious nonbeliever.”...This is a somewhat new kind of religion” (Ibid., p. 218).

“I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me that can be called religion, then it is the unbound admiration for the structure of the world so far as science can reveal it” (Ibid., p. 218).

“What interests me is whether God could have created the world any differently; in other words, whether the demand for logical simplicity leaves any freedom at all” (Ibid., P. 221.)

The last quote is interesting because Tompson Jay Hudson, Ph.D, LL.D, author of the much discussed book The Law of Psychic Phenomena, argues that an omniscient being is incapable of inductive reasoning, a process which is necessary to analysis and independent decision making. Hudson claims that God would be capable of only deductive reasoning,


----------



## james bond

The text of the Bible is thousands of years old, yet it remains perfectly accurate in everything it says.  _*This is especially noteworthy in the field of science.*_  The science which backs up the Bible are many:  The law of biogenesis, the law of thermodynamics, countless stars (God would cause Abraham’s descendants to multiply so that they would be as countless as the stars of the sky.), ship engineering (the instructions of how to build a very large ship are in the Bible from God to Noah), sewage and waste disposal, blood the liquid of life, germs, labor fever and dealing with dead bodies, quarantine, laws of food consumption, sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision, global flood, archaeological accuracy and more are in the Bible and science backs it up.  Just fall to your knees and give it up now.

Science and the Bible.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The text of the Bible is thousands of years old, yet it remains perfectly accurate in everything it says.  _*This is especially noteworthy in the field of science.*_  The science which backs up the Bible are many:  The law of biogenesis, the law of thermodynamics, countless stars (God would cause Abraham’s descendants to multiply so that they would be as countless as the stars of the sky.), ship engineering (the instructions of how to build a very large ship are in the Bible from God to Noah), sewage and waste disposal, blood the liquid of life, germs, labor fever and dealing with dead bodies, quarantine, laws of food consumption, sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision, global flood, archaeological accuracy and more are in the Bible and science backs it up.  Just fall to your knees and give it up now.
> 
> Science and the Bible.



Yes, the Bibles are the only books you ever need to read.... assuming you want to forever be ignorant.

Bible: Science and History


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so they record the evidence, take their photos, and present their hypothesis.
> 
> 
> 
> And then you examine the evidence in light of all the other evidence. You forgot that part. And all the evidence points in the same direction. Oh yeah, that's why you "forgot" that other part.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, and Creationists view the Bible as additional evidence --- you clearly are only concerned with that of your colleagues own making. And the Bible and GOD point in a more logical direction. They answer the question, "WHY?"

And I forgot nothing. those scientists were unsure. Plus the Lord designed a planet, a solar system, a universe. He painted it at the place He desired to begin. And a world wide Flood after the Fall would have churned everything up and contaminated the data. So as everything began to settle various strata would have be laid and various animals would have been buried different ways at different times in the history of the FLOOD.

However, GOD also left those footprints and evolutionists hate them and try their best to ignore them. And when that fails they try to re-evaluate them as not human. And I actually, believe they may even attempt to destroy evidence they don't like, or at the very least present only their own interpretation without eluding to other possibilities...


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The text of the Bible is thousands of years old, yet it remains perfectly accurate in everything it says.  _*This is especially noteworthy in the field of science.*_  The science which backs up the Bible are many:  The law of biogenesis, the law of thermodynamics, countless stars (God would cause Abraham’s descendants to multiply so that they would be as countless as the stars of the sky.), ship engineering (the instructions of how to build a very large ship are in the Bible from God to Noah), sewage and waste disposal, blood the liquid of life, germs, labor fever and dealing with dead bodies, quarantine, laws of food consumption, sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision, global flood, archaeological accuracy and more are in the Bible and science backs it up.  Just fall to your knees and give it up now.
> 
> Science and the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Bibles are the only books you ever need to read.... assuming you want to forever be ignorant.
> 
> Bible: Science and History
Click to expand...

Have you studied the entire Bible?


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The text of the Bible is thousands of years old, yet it remains perfectly accurate in everything it says.  _*This is especially noteworthy in the field of science.*_  The science which backs up the Bible are many:  The law of biogenesis, the law of thermodynamics, countless stars (God would cause Abraham’s descendants to multiply so that they would be as countless as the stars of the sky.), ship engineering (the instructions of how to build a very large ship are in the Bible from God to Noah), sewage and waste disposal, blood the liquid of life, germs, labor fever and dealing with dead bodies, quarantine, laws of food consumption, sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision, global flood, archaeological accuracy and more are in the Bible and science backs it up.  Just fall to your knees and give it up now.
> 
> Science and the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Bibles are the only books you ever need to read.... assuming you want to forever be ignorant.
> 
> Bible: Science and History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you studied the entire Bible?
Click to expand...


Which one?


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so they record the evidence, take their photos, and present their hypothesis.
> 
> 
> 
> And then you examine the evidence in light of all the other evidence. You forgot that part. And all the evidence points in the same direction. Oh yeah, that's why you "forgot" that other part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh yes, and Creationists view the Bible as additional evidence --- you clearly are only concerned with that of your colleagues own making. And the Bible and GOD point in a more logical direction. They answer the question, "WHY?"
> 
> And I forgot nothing. those scientists were unsure. Plus the Lord designed a planet, a solar system, a universe. He painted it at the place He desired to begin. And a world wide Flood after the Fall would have churned everything up and contaminated the data. So as everything began to settle various strata would have be laid and various animals would have been buried different ways at different times in the history of the FLOOD.
> 
> However, GOD also left those footprints and evolutionists hate them and try their best to ignore them. And when that fails they try to re-evaluate them as not human. And I actually, believe they may even attempt to destroy evidence they don't like, or at the very least present only their own interpretation without eluding to other possibilities...
Click to expand...


You hyper-religious types sure do like your conspiracy theories. 

But, it's possible you're correct. It's a secret I expect you to keep to yourself but it's a well known fact that atheist archeologists are out and about at night, under cover of darkness armed with their rakes and shovels planting fossils in the ground just to antagonize christians.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so they record the evidence, take their photos, and present their hypothesis.
> 
> 
> 
> And then you examine the evidence in light of all the other evidence. You forgot that part. And all the evidence points in the same direction. Oh yeah, that's why you "forgot" that other part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh yes, and Creationists view the Bible as additional evidence --- you clearly are only concerned with that of your colleagues own making. And the Bible and GOD point in a more logical direction. They answer the question, "WHY?"
> 
> And I forgot nothing. those scientists were unsure. Plus the Lord designed a planet, a solar system, a universe. He painted it at the place He desired to begin. And a world wide Flood after the Fall would have churned everything up and contaminated the data. So as everything began to settle various strata would have be laid and various animals would have been buried different ways at different times in the history of the FLOOD.
> 
> However, GOD also left those footprints and evolutionists hate them and try their best to ignore them. And when that fails they try to re-evaluate them as not human. And I actually, believe they may even attempt to destroy evidence they don't like, or at the very least present only their own interpretation without eluding to other possibilities...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You hyper-religious types sure do like your conspiracy theories.
> 
> But, it's possible you're correct. It's a secret I expect you to keep to yourself but it's a well known fact that atheist archeologists are out and about at night, under cover of darkness armed with their rakes and shovels planting fossils in the ground just to antagonize Christians.
Click to expand...


I personally know a man whose son had a atheist science teacher in High School who gave this son a load of grief. The father went to the school and suggested that he present Intelligent Design to the class. The school administrator said that such was not a part of their core values... So, the conspiracy is very much out in plane sight for anyone to consider...


----------



## LittleNipper

How would an evolutionist explain this: The 400 million year old hammer


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> How would an evolutionist explain this: The 400 million year old hammer



How would a religionist explain this: Conspiracy the 400 million year old hammer.

Did You read the title of the silly link you posted?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> The text of the Bible is thousands of years old, yet it remains perfectly accurate in everything it says.  _*This is especially noteworthy in the field of science.*_  The science which backs up the Bible are many:  The law of biogenesis, the law of thermodynamics, countless stars (God would cause Abraham’s descendants to multiply so that they would be as countless as the stars of the sky.), ship engineering (the instructions of how to build a very large ship are in the Bible from God to Noah), sewage and waste disposal, blood the liquid of life, germs, labor fever and dealing with dead bodies, quarantine, laws of food consumption, sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision, global flood, archaeological accuracy and more are in the Bible and science backs it up.  Just fall to your knees and give it up now.
> 
> Science and the Bible.


The Bible says that rabbits chew their cud.  Is that perfectly accurate?

The Bible informed the Jews about germs?  Really?  Then why did the constantly die of infections and communicable diseases?  

Most of what the Bible says about nature is bullshit.


----------



## bripat9643

LittleNipper said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obvious fraud.  Why would anyone remove human 100 million year old fossil footprints from the bedrock?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TO PRESERVE THEM AND STUDY THEM
> 
> 
> its obvious you didnt watch the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's because you can't fake them if they are still attached to the bedrock.  Once a block is removed from the strata, you have destroyed whatever provenance it had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, how exactly does your hypothesis reflect on the removal of fossils from their surrounding strata? Does this not then destroy whatever provenance that they had according to what your BELIEVE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When fossil dinosaurs are excavated, each bone is photographed in situ and the location is fully documented.  The bones have to be excavated in order to see them all and to reconstruct the skeleton of the animal.  Generally, foot prints are not excavated because their location is important information. When you excavate fossil footprints you destroy a lot of important information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so they record the evidence, take their photos, and present their hypothesis. What makes you believe they are not as diligent as any other professional. Do I perceive bias on your part? Creationists cannot be bias and yet "evolutionists" can be?
Click to expand...

No paleontologist would remove fossil footprints from the bedrock unless they were in danger of being destroyed.

You claim they followed proper scientific procedure.  Then where are the photos of the footprints in situ?


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> TO PRESERVE THEM AND STUDY THEM
> 
> 
> its obvious you didnt watch the video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's because you can't fake them if they are still attached to the bedrock.  Once a block is removed from the strata, you have destroyed whatever provenance it had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, how exactly does your hypothesis reflect on the removal of fossils from their surrounding strata? Does this not then destroy whatever provenance that they had according to what your BELIEVE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When fossil dinosaurs are excavated, each bone is photographed in situ and the location is fully documented.  The bones have to be excavated in order to see them all and to reconstruct the skeleton of the animal.  Generally, foot prints are not excavated because their location is important information. When you excavate fossil footprints you destroy a lot of important information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so they record the evidence, take their photos, and present their hypothesis. What makes you believe they are not as diligent as any other professional. Do I perceive bias on your part? Creationists cannot be bias and yet "evolutionists" can be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No paleontologist would remove fossil footprints from the bedrock unless they were in danger of being destroyed.
> 
> You claim they followed proper scientific procedure.  Then where are the photos of the footprints in situ?
Click to expand...



since it was a river bed they were in danger

and if you watch the video and maybe go to the website you would see what you want


its your self imposed ignorance thats the problem


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The text of the Bible is thousands of years old, yet it remains perfectly accurate in everything it says.  _*This is especially noteworthy in the field of science.*_  The science which backs up the Bible are many:  The law of biogenesis, the law of thermodynamics, countless stars (God would cause Abraham’s descendants to multiply so that they would be as countless as the stars of the sky.), ship engineering (the instructions of how to build a very large ship are in the Bible from God to Noah), sewage and waste disposal, blood the liquid of life, germs, labor fever and dealing with dead bodies, quarantine, laws of food consumption, sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision, global flood, archaeological accuracy and more are in the Bible and science backs it up.  Just fall to your knees and give it up now.
> 
> Science and the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible says that rabbits chew their cud.  Is that perfectly accurate?
> 
> The Bible informed the Jews about germs?  Really?  Then why did the constantly die of infections and communicable diseases?
> 
> Most of what the Bible says about nature is bullshit.
Click to expand...

dying of infections has nothing to do with it, and communicable disease means they ignored the warning 

your comments are getting pathetic and dishonest


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's because you can't fake them if they are still attached to the bedrock.  Once a block is removed from the strata, you have destroyed whatever provenance it had.
> 
> 
> 
> So, how exactly does your hypothesis reflect on the removal of fossils from their surrounding strata? Does this not then destroy whatever provenance that they had according to what your BELIEVE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When fossil dinosaurs are excavated, each bone is photographed in situ and the location is fully documented.  The bones have to be excavated in order to see them all and to reconstruct the skeleton of the animal.  Generally, foot prints are not excavated because their location is important information. When you excavate fossil footprints you destroy a lot of important information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so they record the evidence, take their photos, and present their hypothesis. What makes you believe they are not as diligent as any other professional. Do I perceive bias on your part? Creationists cannot be bias and yet "evolutionists" can be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No paleontologist would remove fossil footprints from the bedrock unless they were in danger of being destroyed.
> 
> You claim they followed proper scientific procedure.  Then where are the photos of the footprints in situ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> since it was a river bed they were in danger
> 
> and if you watch the video and maybe go to the website you would see what you want
> 
> 
> its your self imposed ignorance thats the problem
Click to expand...


Many fossil foot prints are in river beds.

Who authorized them to remove the fossils?  It obviously wasn't their property.


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The text of the Bible is thousands of years old, yet it remains perfectly accurate in everything it says.  _*This is especially noteworthy in the field of science.*_  The science which backs up the Bible are many:  The law of biogenesis, the law of thermodynamics, countless stars (God would cause Abraham’s descendants to multiply so that they would be as countless as the stars of the sky.), ship engineering (the instructions of how to build a very large ship are in the Bible from God to Noah), sewage and waste disposal, blood the liquid of life, germs, labor fever and dealing with dead bodies, quarantine, laws of food consumption, sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision, global flood, archaeological accuracy and more are in the Bible and science backs it up.  Just fall to your knees and give it up now.
> 
> Science and the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible says that rabbits chew their cud.  Is that perfectly accurate?
> 
> The Bible informed the Jews about germs?  Really?  Then why did the constantly die of infections and communicable diseases?
> 
> Most of what the Bible says about nature is bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dying of infections has nothing to do with it, and communicable disease means they ignored the warning
> 
> your comments are getting pathetic and dishonest
Click to expand...

What "warning?"  Can you quote the text where god warned people about cleanliness and antiseptic practices to prevent the transmission of infection and communicable diseases?


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how exactly does your hypothesis reflect on the removal of fossils from their surrounding strata? Does this not then destroy whatever provenance that they had according to what your BELIEVE?
> 
> 
> 
> When fossil dinosaurs are excavated, each bone is photographed in situ and the location is fully documented.  The bones have to be excavated in order to see them all and to reconstruct the skeleton of the animal.  Generally, foot prints are not excavated because their location is important information. When you excavate fossil footprints you destroy a lot of important information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so they record the evidence, take their photos, and present their hypothesis. What makes you believe they are not as diligent as any other professional. Do I perceive bias on your part? Creationists cannot be bias and yet "evolutionists" can be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No paleontologist would remove fossil footprints from the bedrock unless they were in danger of being destroyed.
> 
> You claim they followed proper scientific procedure.  Then where are the photos of the footprints in situ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> since it was a river bed they were in danger
> 
> and if you watch the video and maybe go to the website you would see what you want
> 
> 
> its your self imposed ignorance thats the problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many fossil foot prints are in river beds.
> 
> Who authorized them to remove the fossils?  It obviously wasn't their property.
Click to expand...




you just surpassed pathetic


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When fossil dinosaurs are excavated, each bone is photographed in situ and the location is fully documented.  The bones have to be excavated in order to see them all and to reconstruct the skeleton of the animal.  Generally, foot prints are not excavated because their location is important information. When you excavate fossil footprints you destroy a lot of important information.
> 
> 
> 
> And so they record the evidence, take their photos, and present their hypothesis. What makes you believe they are not as diligent as any other professional. Do I perceive bias on your part? Creationists cannot be bias and yet "evolutionists" can be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No paleontologist would remove fossil footprints from the bedrock unless they were in danger of being destroyed.
> 
> You claim they followed proper scientific procedure.  Then where are the photos of the footprints in situ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> since it was a river bed they were in danger
> 
> and if you watch the video and maybe go to the website you would see what you want
> 
> 
> its your self imposed ignorance thats the problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many fossil foot prints are in river beds.
> 
> Who authorized them to remove the fossils?  It obviously wasn't their property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you just surpassed pathetic
Click to expand...

How so?  Is that you're way of saying you can't answer the question?


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so they record the evidence, take their photos, and present their hypothesis. What makes you believe they are not as diligent as any other professional. Do I perceive bias on your part? Creationists cannot be bias and yet "evolutionists" can be?
> 
> 
> 
> No paleontologist would remove fossil footprints from the bedrock unless they were in danger of being destroyed.
> 
> You claim they followed proper scientific procedure.  Then where are the photos of the footprints in situ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> since it was a river bed they were in danger
> 
> and if you watch the video and maybe go to the website you would see what you want
> 
> 
> its your self imposed ignorance thats the problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many fossil foot prints are in river beds.
> 
> Who authorized them to remove the fossils?  It obviously wasn't their property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you just surpassed pathetic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?  Is that you're way of saying you can't answer the question?
Click to expand...



so who exactly has authority to give them permission???

and why do you still ask dumb questions instead of reading and watching the answers before asking???

again your self imposed ignorance is the problem


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No paleontologist would remove fossil footprints from the bedrock unless they were in danger of being destroyed.
> 
> You claim they followed proper scientific procedure.  Then where are the photos of the footprints in situ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> since it was a river bed they were in danger
> 
> and if you watch the video and maybe go to the website you would see what you want
> 
> 
> its your self imposed ignorance thats the problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many fossil foot prints are in river beds.
> 
> Who authorized them to remove the fossils?  It obviously wasn't their property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you just surpassed pathetic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?  Is that you're way of saying you can't answer the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so who exactly has authority to give them permission???
> 
> and why do you still ask dumb questions instead of reading and watching the answers before asking???
> 
> again your self imposed ignorance is the problem
Click to expand...


I'm not going on a snipe hunt.  It would be far simpler and easier for you to simply quote it. 
I've done the same for you numerous times.  Since you decline, I assume it doesn't exist. 

You still have not quoted the text where god warned people about cleanliness and antiseptic practices to prevent the transmission of infection and communicable diseases?


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No paleontologist would remove fossil footprints from the bedrock unless they were in danger of being destroyed.
> 
> You claim they followed proper scientific procedure.  Then where are the photos of the footprints in situ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> since it was a river bed they were in danger
> 
> and if you watch the video and maybe go to the website you would see what you want
> 
> 
> its your self imposed ignorance thats the problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many fossil foot prints are in river beds.
> 
> Who authorized them to remove the fossils?  It obviously wasn't their property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you just surpassed pathetic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?  Is that you're way of saying you can't answer the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so who exactly has authority to give them permission???
> 
> and why do you still ask dumb questions instead of reading and watching the answers before asking???
> 
> again your self imposed ignorance is the problem
Click to expand...

The land owners has that authority.  If it's publicly owned, that would be the federal government.


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> since it was a river bed they were in danger
> 
> and if you watch the video and maybe go to the website you would see what you want
> 
> 
> its your self imposed ignorance thats the problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many fossil foot prints are in river beds.
> 
> Who authorized them to remove the fossils?  It obviously wasn't their property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you just surpassed pathetic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?  Is that you're way of saying you can't answer the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so who exactly has authority to give them permission???
> 
> and why do you still ask dumb questions instead of reading and watching the answers before asking???
> 
> again your self imposed ignorance is the problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going on a snipe hunt.  It would be far simpler and easier for you to simply quote it.
> I've done the same for you numerous times.  Since you decline, I assume it doesn't exist.
> 
> You still have not quoted the text where god warned people about cleanliness and antiseptic practices to prevent the transmission of infection and communicable diseases?
Click to expand...

your snipe hunt is your problem not mine


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> since it was a river bed they were in danger
> 
> and if you watch the video and maybe go to the website you would see what you want
> 
> 
> its your self imposed ignorance thats the problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many fossil foot prints are in river beds.
> 
> Who authorized them to remove the fossils?  It obviously wasn't their property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you just surpassed pathetic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?  Is that you're way of saying you can't answer the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so who exactly has authority to give them permission???
> 
> and why do you still ask dumb questions instead of reading and watching the answers before asking???
> 
> again your self imposed ignorance is the problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The land owners has that authority.  If it's publicly owned, that would be the federal government.
Click to expand...

the feds have no authority,,,and since his museum is in the same town and hes not in jail I can only assume he had permission

unless you have something that says different

wait a min,,,,first is was a science thing and now its a land owner thing,,,WTF???

whats next???


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's because you can't fake them if they are still attached to the bedrock.  Once a block is removed from the strata, you have destroyed whatever provenance it had.
> 
> 
> 
> So, how exactly does your hypothesis reflect on the removal of fossils from their surrounding strata? Does this not then destroy whatever provenance that they had according to what your BELIEVE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When fossil dinosaurs are excavated, each bone is photographed in situ and the location is fully documented.  The bones have to be excavated in order to see them all and to reconstruct the skeleton of the animal.  Generally, foot prints are not excavated because their location is important information. When you excavate fossil footprints you destroy a lot of important information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so they record the evidence, take their photos, and present their hypothesis. What makes you believe they are not as diligent as any other professional. Do I perceive bias on your part? Creationists cannot be bias and yet "evolutionists" can be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No paleontologist would remove fossil footprints from the bedrock unless they were in danger of being destroyed.
> 
> You claim they followed proper scientific procedure.  Then where are the photos of the footprints in situ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> since it was a river bed they were in danger
> 
> and if you watch the video and maybe go to the website you would see what you want
> 
> 
> its your self imposed ignorance thats the problem
Click to expand...


Why would anyone go to a fundamentalist Christian ministry for science facts? 


The final and conclusive evidence against evolution is the fact that the Bible denies it.

_Henry M. Morris_


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many fossil foot prints are in river beds.
> 
> Who authorized them to remove the fossils?  It obviously wasn't their property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you just surpassed pathetic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?  Is that you're way of saying you can't answer the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so who exactly has authority to give them permission???
> 
> and why do you still ask dumb questions instead of reading and watching the answers before asking???
> 
> again your self imposed ignorance is the problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The land owners has that authority.  If it's publicly owned, that would be the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the feds have no authority,,,and since his museum is in the same town and hes not in jail I can only assume he had permission
> 
> unless you have something that says different
> 
> wait a min,,,,first is was a science thing and now its a land owner thing,,,WTF???
> 
> whats next???
Click to expand...

You still haven't posted any fotos of the fossils in situ.  

We have no idea who owns the lands where they claim they found the fossils.  Do you have any documentation on it?  If you can't produce that, you're arguing from ignorance.  Until you produce some actual facts, no conclusions can be draw.  The likelihood is that it's a scam.


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many fossil foot prints are in river beds.
> 
> Who authorized them to remove the fossils?  It obviously wasn't their property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you just surpassed pathetic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?  Is that you're way of saying you can't answer the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so who exactly has authority to give them permission???
> 
> and why do you still ask dumb questions instead of reading and watching the answers before asking???
> 
> again your self imposed ignorance is the problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going on a snipe hunt.  It would be far simpler and easier for you to simply quote it.
> I've done the same for you numerous times.  Since you decline, I assume it doesn't exist.
> 
> You still have not quoted the text where god warned people about cleanliness and antiseptic practices to prevent the transmission of infection and communicable diseases?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your snipe hunt is your problem not mine
Click to expand...

No it's your problem because that's your only response to requests for information.  When you refuse to support your claims, people rightly conclude that you're promoting a hoax.


----------



## bripat9643

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The text of the Bible is thousands of years old, yet it remains perfectly accurate in everything it says.  _*This is especially noteworthy in the field of science.*_  The science which backs up the Bible are many:  The law of biogenesis, the law of thermodynamics, countless stars (God would cause Abraham’s descendants to multiply so that they would be as countless as the stars of the sky.), ship engineering (the instructions of how to build a very large ship are in the Bible from God to Noah), sewage and waste disposal, blood the liquid of life, germs, labor fever and dealing with dead bodies, quarantine, laws of food consumption, sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision, global flood, archaeological accuracy and more are in the Bible and science backs it up.  Just fall to your knees and give it up now.
> 
> Science and the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible says that rabbits chew their cud.  Is that perfectly accurate?
> 
> The Bible informed the Jews about germs?  Really?  Then why did the constantly die of infections and communicable diseases?
> 
> Most of what the Bible says about nature is bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dying of infections has nothing to do with it, and communicable disease means they ignored the warning
> 
> your comments are getting pathetic and dishonest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What "warning?"  Can you quote the text where god warned people about cleanliness and antiseptic practices to prevent the transmission of infection and communicable diseases?
Click to expand...

As expected, you haven't responded to this question.  That indicates you are bullshitting us.


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just surpassed pathetic
> 
> 
> 
> How so?  Is that you're way of saying you can't answer the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so who exactly has authority to give them permission???
> 
> and why do you still ask dumb questions instead of reading and watching the answers before asking???
> 
> again your self imposed ignorance is the problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The land owners has that authority.  If it's publicly owned, that would be the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the feds have no authority,,,and since his museum is in the same town and hes not in jail I can only assume he had permission
> 
> unless you have something that says different
> 
> wait a min,,,,first is was a science thing and now its a land owner thing,,,WTF???
> 
> whats next???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still haven't posted any fotos of the fossils in situ.
> 
> We have no idea who owns the lands where they claim they found the fossils.  Do you have any documentation on it?  If you can't produce that, you're arguing from ignorance.  Until you produce some actual facts, no conclusions can be draw.  The likelihood is that it's a scam.
Click to expand...

I wasnt talking about situ you were and that also goes for the land issue,,,do you have some reason to believe he didnt have permission/???

I was hoping your absence from the discussion meant you were educating yourself,,,sadly thats not the case


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The text of the Bible is thousands of years old, yet it remains perfectly accurate in everything it says.  _*This is especially noteworthy in the field of science.*_  The science which backs up the Bible are many:  The law of biogenesis, the law of thermodynamics, countless stars (God would cause Abraham’s descendants to multiply so that they would be as countless as the stars of the sky.), ship engineering (the instructions of how to build a very large ship are in the Bible from God to Noah), sewage and waste disposal, blood the liquid of life, germs, labor fever and dealing with dead bodies, quarantine, laws of food consumption, sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision, global flood, archaeological accuracy and more are in the Bible and science backs it up.  Just fall to your knees and give it up now.
> 
> Science and the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible says that rabbits chew their cud.  Is that perfectly accurate?
> 
> The Bible informed the Jews about germs?  Really?  Then why did the constantly die of infections and communicable diseases?
> 
> Most of what the Bible says about nature is bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dying of infections has nothing to do with it, and communicable disease means they ignored the warning
> 
> your comments are getting pathetic and dishonest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What "warning?"  Can you quote the text where god warned people about cleanliness and antiseptic practices to prevent the transmission of infection and communicable diseases?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As expected, you haven't responded to this question.  That indicates you are bullshitting us.
Click to expand...

but I didnt claim anything,,,I was answering your question as best I could,,,if you want an answer google it,,,its pretty easy thing to do


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?  Is that you're way of saying you can't answer the question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so who exactly has authority to give them permission???
> 
> and why do you still ask dumb questions instead of reading and watching the answers before asking???
> 
> again your self imposed ignorance is the problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The land owners has that authority.  If it's publicly owned, that would be the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the feds have no authority,,,and since his museum is in the same town and hes not in jail I can only assume he had permission
> 
> unless you have something that says different
> 
> wait a min,,,,first is was a science thing and now its a land owner thing,,,WTF???
> 
> whats next???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still haven't posted any fotos of the fossils in situ.
> 
> We have no idea who owns the lands where they claim they found the fossils.  Do you have any documentation on it?  If you can't produce that, you're arguing from ignorance.  Until you produce some actual facts, no conclusions can be draw.  The likelihood is that it's a scam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasnt talking about situ you were and that also goes for the land issue,,,do you have some reason to believe he didnt have permission/???
> 
> I was hoping your absence from the discussion meant you were educating yourself,,,sadly thats not the case
Click to expand...


Whether he has permission is a side issue.  What you need to do is demonstrate that the fossils actually existed in situ.  You're weaseling every way you can to avoid doing that.


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The text of the Bible is thousands of years old, yet it remains perfectly accurate in everything it says.  _*This is especially noteworthy in the field of science.*_  The science which backs up the Bible are many:  The law of biogenesis, the law of thermodynamics, countless stars (God would cause Abraham’s descendants to multiply so that they would be as countless as the stars of the sky.), ship engineering (the instructions of how to build a very large ship are in the Bible from God to Noah), sewage and waste disposal, blood the liquid of life, germs, labor fever and dealing with dead bodies, quarantine, laws of food consumption, sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision, global flood, archaeological accuracy and more are in the Bible and science backs it up.  Just fall to your knees and give it up now.
> 
> Science and the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible says that rabbits chew their cud.  Is that perfectly accurate?
> 
> The Bible informed the Jews about germs?  Really?  Then why did the constantly die of infections and communicable diseases?
> 
> Most of what the Bible says about nature is bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dying of infections has nothing to do with it, and communicable disease means they ignored the warning
> 
> your comments are getting pathetic and dishonest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What "warning?"  Can you quote the text where god warned people about cleanliness and antiseptic practices to prevent the transmission of infection and communicable diseases?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As expected, you haven't responded to this question.  That indicates you are bullshitting us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but I didnt claim anything,,,I was answering your question as best I could,,,if you want an answer google it,,,its pretty easy thing to do
Click to expand...

In other words, when I ask a question, your response is "go fuck yourself."  That doesn't help your credibility.


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible says that rabbits chew their cud.  Is that perfectly accurate?
> 
> The Bible informed the Jews about germs?  Really?  Then why did the constantly die of infections and communicable diseases?
> 
> Most of what the Bible says about nature is bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> dying of infections has nothing to do with it, and communicable disease means they ignored the warning
> 
> your comments are getting pathetic and dishonest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What "warning?"  Can you quote the text where god warned people about cleanliness and antiseptic practices to prevent the transmission of infection and communicable diseases?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As expected, you haven't responded to this question.  That indicates you are bullshitting us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but I didnt claim anything,,,I was answering your question as best I could,,,if you want an answer google it,,,its pretty easy thing to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, when I ask a question, your response is "go fuck yourself."  That doesn't help your credibility.
Click to expand...

I didnt say that


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> dying of infections has nothing to do with it, and communicable disease means they ignored the warning
> 
> your comments are getting pathetic and dishonest
> 
> 
> 
> What "warning?"  Can you quote the text where god warned people about cleanliness and antiseptic practices to prevent the transmission of infection and communicable diseases?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As expected, you haven't responded to this question.  That indicates you are bullshitting us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but I didnt claim anything,,,I was answering your question as best I could,,,if you want an answer google it,,,its pretty easy thing to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, when I ask a question, your response is "go fuck yourself."  That doesn't help your credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didnt say that
Click to expand...

Not in so many words, but that's effectively what you said.


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> so who exactly has authority to give them permission???
> 
> and why do you still ask dumb questions instead of reading and watching the answers before asking???
> 
> again your self imposed ignorance is the problem
> 
> 
> 
> The land owners has that authority.  If it's publicly owned, that would be the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the feds have no authority,,,and since his museum is in the same town and hes not in jail I can only assume he had permission
> 
> unless you have something that says different
> 
> wait a min,,,,first is was a science thing and now its a land owner thing,,,WTF???
> 
> whats next???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still haven't posted any fotos of the fossils in situ.
> 
> We have no idea who owns the lands where they claim they found the fossils.  Do you have any documentation on it?  If you can't produce that, you're arguing from ignorance.  Until you produce some actual facts, no conclusions can be draw.  The likelihood is that it's a scam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasnt talking about situ you were and that also goes for the land issue,,,do you have some reason to believe he didnt have permission/???
> 
> I was hoping your absence from the discussion meant you were educating yourself,,,sadly thats not the case
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether he has permission is a side issue.  What you need to do is demonstrate that the fossils actually existed in situ.  You're weaseling every way you can to avoid doing that.
Click to expand...

if permission is a side issue why are you bringing it up

I dont need to prove anything since its all on the video and website,,,

not my job to educate you


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land owners has that authority.  If it's publicly owned, that would be the federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> the feds have no authority,,,and since his museum is in the same town and hes not in jail I can only assume he had permission
> 
> unless you have something that says different
> 
> wait a min,,,,first is was a science thing and now its a land owner thing,,,WTF???
> 
> whats next???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still haven't posted any fotos of the fossils in situ.
> 
> We have no idea who owns the lands where they claim they found the fossils.  Do you have any documentation on it?  If you can't produce that, you're arguing from ignorance.  Until you produce some actual facts, no conclusions can be draw.  The likelihood is that it's a scam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasnt talking about situ you were and that also goes for the land issue,,,do you have some reason to believe he didnt have permission/???
> 
> I was hoping your absence from the discussion meant you were educating yourself,,,sadly thats not the case
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether he has permission is a side issue.  What you need to do is demonstrate that the fossils actually existed in situ.  You're weaseling every way you can to avoid doing that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if permission is a side issue why are you bringing it up
> 
> I dont need to prove anything since its all on the video and website,,,
> 
> not my job to educate you
Click to expand...

In other words, go fuck yourself.  Your credibility slides with every post.


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the feds have no authority,,,and since his museum is in the same town and hes not in jail I can only assume he had permission
> 
> unless you have something that says different
> 
> wait a min,,,,first is was a science thing and now its a land owner thing,,,WTF???
> 
> whats next???
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't posted any fotos of the fossils in situ.
> 
> We have no idea who owns the lands where they claim they found the fossils.  Do you have any documentation on it?  If you can't produce that, you're arguing from ignorance.  Until you produce some actual facts, no conclusions can be draw.  The likelihood is that it's a scam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasnt talking about situ you were and that also goes for the land issue,,,do you have some reason to believe he didnt have permission/???
> 
> I was hoping your absence from the discussion meant you were educating yourself,,,sadly thats not the case
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether he has permission is a side issue.  What you need to do is demonstrate that the fossils actually existed in situ.  You're weaseling every way you can to avoid doing that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if permission is a side issue why are you bringing it up
> 
> I dont need to prove anything since its all on the video and website,,,
> 
> not my job to educate you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, go fuck yourself.  Your credibility slides with every post.
Click to expand...


thats not what I said or implied


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Oh yes, and Creationists view the Bible as additional evidence


So what? They are wrong, and it is not evidence. And the only reason they claim itto be evidence, I because they start from the point of all of it being true. Which is stupid circular nonsense.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> How would an evolutionist explain this: The 400 million year old hammer


They would start by reading something other than an iron age fairy tale. Not that you will read a single word of this:

The London Artifact (Texas) - Bad Archaeology


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The text of the Bible is thousands of years old, yet it remains perfectly accurate in everything it says.  _*This is especially noteworthy in the field of science.*_  The science which backs up the Bible are many:  The law of biogenesis, the law of thermodynamics, countless stars (God would cause Abraham’s descendants to multiply so that they would be as countless as the stars of the sky.), ship engineering (the instructions of how to build a very large ship are in the Bible from God to Noah), sewage and waste disposal, blood the liquid of life, germs, labor fever and dealing with dead bodies, quarantine, laws of food consumption, sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision, global flood, archaeological accuracy and more are in the Bible and science backs it up.  Just fall to your knees and give it up now.
> 
> Science and the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Bibles are the only books you ever need to read.... assuming you want to forever be ignorant.
> 
> Bible: Science and History
Click to expand...


I didn't say that.  We still need science texts.  Just not evolution texts except for microevolution.  The eternal universe was believed for many centuries, but didn't make a difference.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, and Creationists view the Bible as additional evidence
> 
> 
> 
> So what? They are wrong, and it is not evidence. And the only reason they claim itto be evidence, I because they start from the point of all of it being true. Which is stupid circular nonsense.
Click to expand...


Circular nonsense is evolution.  No one knows what happened a million or a billion years ago.  There were no witnesses and it happens too slowly (That's the hellish job you're going to get).  Just assume it didn't happen and then panspermia becomes more important.

See the mountain of evidence for creation science in my post #479.

Science Proves the Bible Again


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> No one knows what happened a million or a billion years ago.


No, you mean you don't know... despite claiming you do know with 100% certainty (right before claiming nobody knows, which shows what kind of freakish, delusion little quack you are).

You know less than nothing about evolution, and you certainly are not qualified or entitled to an opinion of it. Your opinion on evolution is worth about as much as  German Shepherd's opinion on quantum mechanics.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one knows what happened a million or a billion years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you mean you don't know... despite claiming you do know with 100% certainty (right before claiming nobody knows, which shows what kind of freakish, delusion little quack you are).
> 
> You know less than nothing about evolution, and you certainly are not qualified or entitled to an opinion of it. Your opinion on evolution is worth about as much as  German Shepherd's opinion on quantum mechanics.
Click to expand...

hes a step above you,,,troll


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one knows what happened a million or a billion years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you mean you don't know... despite claiming you do know with 100% certainty (right before claiming nobody knows, which shows what kind of freakish, delusion little quack you are).
> 
> You know less than nothing about evolution, and you certainly are not qualified or entitled to an opinion of it. Your opinion on evolution is worth about as much as  German Shepherd's opinion on quantum mechanics.
Click to expand...


With quantum mechanics, one can do experiments because you don't need a million years or billion years.  I don't think that will go away.

Evolution is only meaningful if you make income from it like a grant or you're a teacher.  It could fail in 2019 and something else like panspermia replaces it.  Then all the stupid posts that you made in the years I've known would be worthless.  It's already worthless since everyone on USMB has forgotten it.  Your ape-human, Lucy, has been put away in mothballs in Ethiopia.  However, God and creation science isn't forgotten in all the years we have been here whether six-to-ten thousand years or millions and billions of years.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The text of the Bible is thousands of years old, yet it remains perfectly accurate in everything it says.  _*This is especially noteworthy in the field of science.*_  The science which backs up the Bible are many:  The law of biogenesis, the law of thermodynamics, countless stars (God would cause Abraham’s descendants to multiply so that they would be as countless as the stars of the sky.), ship engineering (the instructions of how to build a very large ship are in the Bible from God to Noah), sewage and waste disposal, blood the liquid of life, germs, labor fever and dealing with dead bodies, quarantine, laws of food consumption, sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision, global flood, archaeological accuracy and more are in the Bible and science backs it up.  Just fall to your knees and give it up now.
> 
> Science and the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Bibles are the only books you ever need to read.... assuming you want to forever be ignorant.
> 
> Bible: Science and History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that.  We still need science texts.  Just not evolution texts except for microevolution.  The eternal universe was believed for many centuries, but didn't make a difference.
Click to expand...


The problem with your excluding texts on “evilution” is that many complimentary sciences support biological evolution. 

I’m afraid you will have to learn to live with the knowledge and enlightenment that moved western civilization out of the Christian imposed Dark Ages.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, and Creationists view the Bible as additional evidence
> 
> 
> 
> So what? They are wrong, and it is not evidence. And the only reason they claim itto be evidence, I because they start from the point of all of it being true. Which is stupid circular nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Circular nonsense is evolution.  No one knows what happened a million or a billion years ago.  There were no witnesses and it happens too slowly (That's the hellish job you're going to get).  Just assume it didn't happen and then panspermia becomes more important.
> 
> See the mountain of evidence for creation science in my post #479.
> 
> Science Proves the Bible Again
Click to expand...



The Problem of the Bible: Inaccuracies, contradictions, fallacies, scientific issues and more.


----------



## LittleNipper

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The text of the Bible is thousands of years old, yet it remains perfectly accurate in everything it says.  _*This is especially noteworthy in the field of science.*_  The science which backs up the Bible are many:  The law of biogenesis, the law of thermodynamics, countless stars (God would cause Abraham’s descendants to multiply so that they would be as countless as the stars of the sky.), ship engineering (the instructions of how to build a very large ship are in the Bible from God to Noah), sewage and waste disposal, blood the liquid of life, germs, labor fever and dealing with dead bodies, quarantine, laws of food consumption, sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision, global flood, archaeological accuracy and more are in the Bible and science backs it up.  Just fall to your knees and give it up now.
> 
> Science and the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible says that rabbits chew their cud.  Is that perfectly accurate?
> 
> The Bible informed the Jews about germs?  Really?  Then why did the constantly die of infections and communicable diseases?
> 
> Most of what the Bible says about nature is B-T.
Click to expand...

What the Bible says is always worth of kind consideration and deep thought:  Do rabbits chew their cud - creation.com


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, and Creationists view the Bible as additional evidence
> 
> 
> 
> So what? They are wrong, and it is not evidence. And the only reason they claim itto be evidence, I because they start from the point of all of it being true. Which is stupid circular nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Circular nonsense is evolution.  No one knows what happened a million or a billion years ago.  There were no witnesses and it happens too slowly (That's the hellish job you're going to get).  Just assume it didn't happen and then panspermia becomes more important.
> 
> See the mountain of evidence for creation science in my post #479.
> 
> Science Proves the Bible Again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Problem of the Bible: Inaccuracies, contradictions, fallacies, scientific issues and more.
Click to expand...

You may wish to consider the obvious: Are There Any Errors in the Bible? - NAMB


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> The problem with your excluding texts on “evilution” is that many complimentary sciences support biological evolution.



As I said over and over, they eliminated their competition with the Bible creation theory who do not believe in changes over long time and modification by descent, i.e. tree of life.  The "complementary" groups only support "evilution" as best theory as there is no other competing theory.  There was prior to the 1850s.

Why are the secular scientists so afraid of creation?  It's not new.  It's not like they do not know about it.  What they are afraid of is that it is right and they are wrong which is the same with the posters against creation here.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your excluding texts on “evilution” is that many complimentary sciences support biological evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said over and over, they eliminated their competition with the Bible creation theory who do not believe in changes over long time and modification by descent, i.e. tree of life.  The "complementary" groups only support "evilution" as best theory as there is no other competing theory.  There was prior to the 1850s.
> 
> Why are the secular scientists so afraid of creation?  It's not new.  It's not like they do not know about it.  What they are afraid of is that it is right and they are wrong which is the same with the posters against creation here.
Click to expand...

"Afraid" of it? Science is about truth, not fairy tales.  The creation myth is just that: a myth.  Scientists ridicule it.  They aren't afraid of it.


----------



## DOTR

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The text of the Bible is thousands of years old, yet it remains perfectly accurate in everything it says.  _*This is especially noteworthy in the field of science.*_  The science which backs up the Bible are many:  The law of biogenesis, the law of thermodynamics, countless stars (God would cause Abraham’s descendants to multiply so that they would be as countless as the stars of the sky.), ship engineering (the instructions of how to build a very large ship are in the Bible from God to Noah), sewage and waste disposal, blood the liquid of life, germs, labor fever and dealing with dead bodies, quarantine, laws of food consumption, sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision, global flood, archaeological accuracy and more are in the Bible and science backs it up.  Just fall to your knees and give it up now.
> 
> Science and the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Bibles are the only books you ever need to read.... assuming you want to forever be ignorant.
> 
> Bible: Science and History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that.  We still need science texts.  Just not evolution texts except for microevolution.  The eternal universe was believed for many centuries, but didn't make a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with your excluding texts on “evilution” is that many complimentary sciences support biological evolution.
> 
> I’m afraid you will have to learn to live with the knowledge and enlightenment that moved western civilization out of the Christian imposed Dark Ages.
Click to expand...


  If you had waited on anyone but Christians to advance science you would still be waiting. Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk and George Lamaitre (Big Bang Theory) was a priest to name two examples.


----------



## bripat9643

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, and Creationists view the Bible as additional evidence
> 
> 
> 
> So what? They are wrong, and it is not evidence. And the only reason they claim itto be evidence, I because they start from the point of all of it being true. Which is stupid circular nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Circular nonsense is evolution.  No one knows what happened a million or a billion years ago.  There were no witnesses and it happens too slowly (That's the hellish job you're going to get).  Just assume it didn't happen and then panspermia becomes more important.
> 
> See the mountain of evidence for creation science in my post #479.
> 
> Science Proves the Bible Again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Problem of the Bible: Inaccuracies, contradictions, fallacies, scientific issues and more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may wish to consider the obvious: Are There Any Errors in the Bible? - NAMB
Click to expand...


God believes the Sun orbits a flat Earth:

_“On the day when YHWH gave the Amorites over to the Israelites, Joshua spoke to YHWH; and he [unspecified whether Joshua or God] said in the sight of Israel, ‘Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and Moon, in the valley of Aijalon.’ And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in midheaven, and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.” — Joshua 10:12-13_​Flying insects walk on all fours.

“All winged insects that walk upon all fours are detestable to you [Lev. 11:20-23].” In fact, _no_ insect walks on all fours. Insects have six legs, three on each side. (Spiders have eight legs. Centipedes and millipedes are not insects — in fact, they _eat_ insects.)​


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your excluding texts on “evilution” is that many complimentary sciences support biological evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said over and over, they eliminated their competition with the Bible creation theory who do not believe in changes over long time and modification by descent, i.e. tree of life.  The "complementary" groups only support "evilution" as best theory as there is no other competing theory.  There was prior to the 1850s.
> 
> Why are the secular scientists so afraid of creation?  It's not new.  It's not like they do not know about it.  What they are afraid of is that it is right and they are wrong which is the same with the posters against creation here.
Click to expand...


Repeating falsehoods over and over doesn't make falsehoods true. 

ID'iot / creationist dogma is not science, it's Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of false labels.  All of your appeals to magic and supernaturalism presupposes that your gods are the true gods. All religions make this claim. I see nothing that advances your claim above the others.

None of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to supernaturalism. If you or any I.D.er's have evidence that something shows signs of being designed (something that could not have arisen naturally) please come forward with it. To date, no one has. You are trying to shift the burden of proof. ID'iot / creationists are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must support their claims. 

There is no such theory as "bible creation theory." That is simply a slogan christian fundamentalists use to falsely label religious belief as something it is not. 

Why don't your fundie ministries publish their "*General Theory of Supernatural Creation*" in peer reviewed literature allow the relevant science community to examine the data. 

You already know why. ID'iot / creationism has repeatedly been debunked as nothing more than appeals to the various bibles.


----------



## Hollie

DOTR said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The text of the Bible is thousands of years old, yet it remains perfectly accurate in everything it says.  _*This is especially noteworthy in the field of science.*_  The science which backs up the Bible are many:  The law of biogenesis, the law of thermodynamics, countless stars (God would cause Abraham’s descendants to multiply so that they would be as countless as the stars of the sky.), ship engineering (the instructions of how to build a very large ship are in the Bible from God to Noah), sewage and waste disposal, blood the liquid of life, germs, labor fever and dealing with dead bodies, quarantine, laws of food consumption, sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision, global flood, archaeological accuracy and more are in the Bible and science backs it up.  Just fall to your knees and give it up now.
> 
> Science and the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Bibles are the only books you ever need to read.... assuming you want to forever be ignorant.
> 
> Bible: Science and History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that.  We still need science texts.  Just not evolution texts except for microevolution.  The eternal universe was believed for many centuries, but didn't make a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with your excluding texts on “evilution” is that many complimentary sciences support biological evolution.
> 
> I’m afraid you will have to learn to live with the knowledge and enlightenment that moved western civilization out of the Christian imposed Dark Ages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had waited on anyone but Christians to advance science you would still be waiting. Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk and George Lamaitre (Big Bang Theory) was a priest to name two examples.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. It was the christian church that held back science for 800 years and furthered the Dark Ages. 

Galileo Galilei was persecuted by the church for his work. So was Issac Newton and many others.


----------



## DOTR

Hollie said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The text of the Bible is thousands of years old, yet it remains perfectly accurate in everything it says.  _*This is especially noteworthy in the field of science.*_  The science which backs up the Bible are many:  The law of biogenesis, the law of thermodynamics, countless stars (God would cause Abraham’s descendants to multiply so that they would be as countless as the stars of the sky.), ship engineering (the instructions of how to build a very large ship are in the Bible from God to Noah), sewage and waste disposal, blood the liquid of life, germs, labor fever and dealing with dead bodies, quarantine, laws of food consumption, sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision, global flood, archaeological accuracy and more are in the Bible and science backs it up.  Just fall to your knees and give it up now.
> 
> Science and the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Bibles are the only books you ever need to read.... assuming you want to forever be ignorant.
> 
> Bible: Science and History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that.  We still need science texts.  Just not evolution texts except for microevolution.  The eternal universe was believed for many centuries, but didn't make a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with your excluding texts on “evilution” is that many complimentary sciences support biological evolution.
> 
> I’m afraid you will have to learn to live with the knowledge and enlightenment that moved western civilization out of the Christian imposed Dark Ages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had waited on anyone but Christians to advance science you would still be waiting. Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk and George Lamaitre (Big Bang Theory) was a priest to name two examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. It was the christian church that held back science for 800 years and furthered the Dark Ages.
> 
> Galileo Galilei was persecuted by the church for his work. So was Issac Newton and many others.
Click to expand...


   Nonsense. Libraries, science, book publishing, schools and hospitals were all preserved by the church. 
   This in the face of the slow collapse of the Roman government, deurbanization and centuries of attack by pagan forces.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> Science is about truth, not fairy tales.



Your statement continues to show you are ignorant about science after all the previous discussions we had.  Science is the search for the truth, not "is about truth."  It is about best theory (and argument over who has the best one).  Anyway, I'm sure you'll forget tomorrow and be wrong again.


----------



## james bond

DOTR said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The text of the Bible is thousands of years old, yet it remains perfectly accurate in everything it says.  _*This is especially noteworthy in the field of science.*_  The science which backs up the Bible are many:  The law of biogenesis, the law of thermodynamics, countless stars (God would cause Abraham’s descendants to multiply so that they would be as countless as the stars of the sky.), ship engineering (the instructions of how to build a very large ship are in the Bible from God to Noah), sewage and waste disposal, blood the liquid of life, germs, labor fever and dealing with dead bodies, quarantine, laws of food consumption, sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision, global flood, archaeological accuracy and more are in the Bible and science backs it up.  Just fall to your knees and give it up now.
> 
> Science and the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Bibles are the only books you ever need to read.... assuming you want to forever be ignorant.
> 
> Bible: Science and History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that.  We still need science texts.  Just not evolution texts except for microevolution.  The eternal universe was believed for many centuries, but didn't make a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with your excluding texts on “evilution” is that many complimentary sciences support biological evolution.
> 
> I’m afraid you will have to learn to live with the knowledge and enlightenment that moved western civilization out of the Christian imposed Dark Ages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had waited on anyone but Christians to advance science you would still be waiting. Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk and George Lamaitre (Big Bang Theory) was a priest to name two examples.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  Creation scientists are very up-to-date on science matters.  More than secular or atheist scientists in some ways.  Georges Lemaitre was the first to propose that the universe was expanding.  You are jumping to conclusions stating it had to do with BBT.

Creation scientists - creation.com

Now, can you name a couple of secular scientists that showed anything to do with evolution that was observable, testable and falsifiable?  Us so called "slow" creationists will believe it if you do.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The text of the Bible is thousands of years old, yet it remains perfectly accurate in everything it says.  _*This is especially noteworthy in the field of science.*_  The science which backs up the Bible are many:  The law of biogenesis, the law of thermodynamics, countless stars (God would cause Abraham’s descendants to multiply so that they would be as countless as the stars of the sky.), ship engineering (the instructions of how to build a very large ship are in the Bible from God to Noah), sewage and waste disposal, blood the liquid of life, germs, labor fever and dealing with dead bodies, quarantine, laws of food consumption, sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision, global flood, archaeological accuracy and more are in the Bible and science backs it up.  Just fall to your knees and give it up now.
> 
> Science and the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Bibles are the only books you ever need to read.... assuming you want to forever be ignorant.
> 
> Bible: Science and History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that.  We still need science texts.  Just not evolution texts except for microevolution.  The eternal universe was believed for many centuries, but didn't make a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with your excluding texts on “evilution” is that many complimentary sciences support biological evolution.
> 
> I’m afraid you will have to learn to live with the knowledge and enlightenment that moved western civilization out of the Christian imposed Dark Ages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had waited on anyone but Christians to advance science you would still be waiting. Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk and George Lamaitre (Big Bang Theory) was a priest to name two examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Creation scientists are very up-to-date on science matters.  More than secular or atheist scientists in some ways.  Georges Lemaitre was the first to propose that the universe was expanding.  You are jumping to conclusions stating it had to do with BBT.
> 
> Creation scientists - creation.com
> 
> Now, can you name a couple of secular scientists that showed anything to do with evolution that was observable, testable and falsifiable?  Us so called "slow" creationists will believe it if you do.
Click to expand...

Haha, you are the number one plagiarizer of that idiot blog, populated by no scoentists or anyone who knows fuck all about science.

But the saddest part is that , every time anyone has ever bothered to engage your horseshit in an honest discussion, you inmediately make it clear that you don't even understand the material you have plagiarized....feckin moron...


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Haha, you are the number one plagiarizer of that idiot blog,



Well, you're the idiot that kept talking about creation.com and wrongly attributing it to me (despite my telling you I use AIG and ICR).  Thus, I finally found an article of theirs I liked and now you don't like it and say I am plagiarizing it with zero evidence.  Zero evidence is what you have for aliens, abiogenesis and we still haven't gotten anything from trying to back-engineer a chicken into a dinosaur or mini-raptor unless you are counting dino chicken nuggets .






OTOH, I did present Louis Pasteur's famous experiment to disprove abiogenesis -- only life begats life and how amino acids can't form proteins outside of the cell due to chilarity.  Moreover, I presented the fine tuning facts and solar wind (including magnetic field and tectonic plates) to discard aliens.  I even added SETI, Elon Musk's theories,Ferdi paradox, Drake equation, great filter and more to explain we should have made contact with ET already.  Yet, you atheists and wrong scientists cannot "believe" even though panspermia has pretty much been ruled out.  You still have not found a living chimp or ape that is bipedal.  Yet, you claim to have the mountain of evidence and that evolution is fact.  So far, the fact is evolution is wrong even though we want to see the chicken raptor .


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Well, you're the idiot that kept talking about creation.com and wrongly attributing it to me


Which, of course, is another shameless lie form the worst liar on this board. I have caught you countless time plagiarizing, nearly verbatim, content from that site. And I have made sure everyone knows by then posting links to the blogs you plagiarize.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> You still have found a chimp or ape that is bipedal.


Uh...what? You write like a child.

Humans are bipedal apes, you imbecile. And all the other apes are at least partially bipedal, and the newly discovered Bili ape appears to be mostly, if not completely, bipedal.

Just shut up, you fraud. You are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Hollie

DOTR said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Bibles are the only books you ever need to read.... assuming you want to forever be ignorant.
> 
> Bible: Science and History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that.  We still need science texts.  Just not evolution texts except for microevolution.  The eternal universe was believed for many centuries, but didn't make a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with your excluding texts on “evilution” is that many complimentary sciences support biological evolution.
> 
> I’m afraid you will have to learn to live with the knowledge and enlightenment that moved western civilization out of the Christian imposed Dark Ages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had waited on anyone but Christians to advance science you would still be waiting. Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk and George Lamaitre (Big Bang Theory) was a priest to name two examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. It was the christian church that held back science for 800 years and furthered the Dark Ages.
> 
> Galileo Galilei was persecuted by the church for his work. So was Issac Newton and many others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Libraries, science, book publishing, schools and hospitals were all preserved by the church.
> This in the face of the slow collapse of the Roman government, deurbanization and centuries of attack by pagan forces.
Click to expand...


It's comical that anyone would suggest that the Catholic Church was not a proprietor of the Dark Ages when it was the Church that oppressed and persecuted some of the best philosophers, mathematicians and thinkers of the period. Western civilization emerged from the Dark Ages only when free thinkers, (scientists, mathematicians, writers, poets, musicians), were able to challenge the religious authorities and examine the world in terms of events and circumstances that are not held to an inflexible, rigorous dogma that is often in irreconcilable contradiction to the natural world.

Galileo was tried for heresy ver his support of the Copernican view that the Earth revolves around the sun. I would say there is quite a bit of difference between two scientists disagreeing on mechanisms of evolution, versus the Catholic church taking 500+ years to remove Galileo from their list of "criminals".


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Well said.

Our secular enlightenment -- Science, classical liberalism, secular government --happened, and continues to happen, in spite of religion.


----------



## LittleNipper

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your excluding texts on “evilution” is that many complimentary sciences support biological evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said over and over, they eliminated their competition with the Bible creation theory who do not believe in changes over long time and modification by descent, i.e. tree of life.  The "complementary" groups only support "evilution" as best theory as there is no other competing theory.  There was prior to the 1850s.
> 
> Why are the secular scientists so afraid of creation?  It's not new.  It's not like they do not know about it.  What they are afraid of is that it is right and they are wrong which is the same with the posters against creation here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Afraid" of it? Science is about truth, not fairy tales.  The creation myth is just that: a myth.  Scientists ridicule it.  They aren't afraid of it.
Click to expand...

Macro evolution is the fairy tale. True science is about repeat ability. If it cannot be repeated, it is still science fiction. Please see the following: https://wisehealthwealth.com/science-proves-evolution-wrong-human-evolution-is-false


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> True science is about repeat ability. If it cannot be repeated, it is still science fiction.


Of course, that's madeup young earth nonsense meant to fool children. We can't repeat  the formation of a star, or a large meteor strike from millions of years ago, or formation of an iron-cored planet.  Nor would we ever be expected to do so, to get a good understanding of them. You are a fraud, and you reserve this idiotic standard only for science that contradicts your iron aged fairy tale.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're the idiot that kept talking about creation.com and wrongly attributing it to me
> 
> 
> 
> Which, of course, is another shameless lie form the worst liar on this board. I have caught you countless time plagiarizing, nearly verbatim, content from that site. And I have made sure everyone knows by then posting links to the blogs you plagiarize.
Click to expand...


You have no evidence of lying nor plagiarizing on my part, but I do have countless lying on your part accusing me of lying and lying about evolution.  You got zero evidence and won't have any in a million or billion years.  Not only are you spiritually dead, but you are brain dead.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Humans are bipedal apes,



Humans are not apes.  Evos just made that stuff up using circular reasoning and you are repeating their fallacies.  Let's just add another notch to your countless lies you have pooped out of you rear end.  It's no wonder you can't help but lie because you follow the lies master Satan.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana, where is the chicken that became a dinosaur?  If that experiment doesn't happen, then it never did happen and never will happen.  You have LIED and are WRONG once again.  What kind of brain dead are you?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> but I do have countless lying on your part accusing me of lying and lying about evolution. You got zero evidence


And then a lie, in the next breath.  You just can't help yourself.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> where is the chicken that became a dinosaur? If that experiment doesn't happen, then it never did happen and never will happen.




A chicken... that became a dinosaur?  What?  First off, chickens are dinosaurs, as is pretty much known by most middle schoolers these days.

Who has ever proposed that a chicken be 'turned into a dinosaur', and that the truth of evolution also rests on it?  What on earth are you babbling about?


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> True science is about repeat ability. If it cannot be repeated, it is still science fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, that's madeup young earth nonsense meant to fool children. We can't repeat  the formation of a star, or a large meteor strike from millions of years ago, or formation of an iron-cored planet.  Nor would we ever be expected to do so, to get a good understanding of them. You are a fraud, and you reserve this idiotic standard only for science that contradicts your iron aged fairy tale.
Click to expand...

You are the fraud. You harp on Christians because they are unable to produce GOD in a test tube.  And  then you get in a huff when you are asked to perform any experiment that creates a new species from among fruit flies ---- not simply just a breed (if even that).

I would never deny that an asteroid hit the earth. I even believe that one called _*WORMWOOD *_will hit the earth in the not too distant future. I simply realize that the "MILLIONS" of years is a misreading of contaminated materials that are dated through radiology having no absolute proof of the starting point of their created form... Obviously you do not believe in creation; however, I do not believe that there wasn't a creation.  Your burden of proof is not unrelated to that of my own.


----------



## Confounding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And then a lie, in the next breath.  You just can't help yourself.



Give him a break. It's not easy to make an argument for why the scientists don't know how to do science.


----------



## LittleNipper

The Bible doesn't promote bad science as truth: Is the Bible Scientifically Accurate?


----------



## bripat9643

LittleNipper said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your excluding texts on “evilution” is that many complimentary sciences support biological evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said over and over, they eliminated their competition with the Bible creation theory who do not believe in changes over long time and modification by descent, i.e. tree of life.  The "complementary" groups only support "evilution" as best theory as there is no other competing theory.  There was prior to the 1850s.
> 
> Why are the secular scientists so afraid of creation?  It's not new.  It's not like they do not know about it.  What they are afraid of is that it is right and they are wrong which is the same with the posters against creation here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Afraid" of it? Science is about truth, not fairy tales.  The creation myth is just that: a myth.  Scientists ridicule it.  They aren't afraid of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Macro evolution is the fairy tale. True science is about repeat ability. If it cannot be repeated, it is still science fiction. Please see the following: https://wisehealthwealth.com/science-proves-evolution-wrong-human-evolution-is-false
Click to expand...

"Macro evolution" is not a scientific term. It's hocus-pocus.  There is only evolution.  Not all science is experiments.  Furthermore, evolution has been tested in the lab with bacteria.  We have bacteria resistant to antibiotics because of evolution.


----------



## bripat9643

LittleNipper said:


> The Bible doesn't promote bad science as truth: Is the Bible Scientifically Accurate?


No, it promotes pure fantasy as truth.   The Bible is a work of fiction.


----------



## bripat9643

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still have found a chimp or ape that is bipedal.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...what? You write like a child.
> 
> Humans are bipedal apes, you imbecile. And all the other apes are at least partially bipedal, and the newly discovered Bili ape appears to be mostly, if not completely, bipedal.
> 
> Just shut up, you fraud. You are embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...

All specimens in the human family tree going back almost 2 million years are fully bipedal.

Becoming Human: The Evolution of Walking Upright      |     Science     | Smithsonian
_
The earliest hominid with the most extensive evidence for bipedalism is the 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus. In 2009, researchers announced the results of more than 15 years of analysis of the species and introduced the world to a nearly complete skeleton called Ardi. 

Although the earliest hominids were capable of upright walking, they probably didn’t get around exactly as we do today. They retained primitive features—such as long, curved fingers and toes as well as longer arms and shorter legs—that indicate they spent time in trees. It’s not until the emergence of H. erectus 1.89 million years ago that hominids grew tall, evolved long legs and became completely terrestrial creatures._​


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> but I do have countless lying on your part accusing me of lying and lying about evolution. You got zero evidence
> 
> 
> 
> And then a lie, in the next breath.  You just can't help yourself.
Click to expand...


You must be talking to yourself in the mirror.  Stick out your tongue.  Is it forked shape haha?  

You have zero evidence as your mountain of evidence while you can't help yourself in believing in the lies.  In the Michio Kaku thread, he established God exists through theoretical physics experiment and math.  That is where the truth begins.  Not with Satan.  You know it, but still cannot accept because lying is easier to cover up your foolishness.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still have found a chimp or ape that is bipedal.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...what? You write like a child.
> 
> Humans are bipedal apes, you imbecile. And all the other apes are at least partially bipedal, and the newly discovered Bili ape appears to be mostly, if not completely, bipedal.
> 
> Just shut up, you fraud. You are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All specimens in the human family tree going back almost 2 million years are fully bipedal.
> 
> Becoming Human: The Evolution of Walking Upright      |     Science     | Smithsonian
> _
> The earliest hominid with the most extensive evidence for bipedalism is the 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus. In 2009, researchers announced the results of more than 15 years of analysis of the species and introduced the world to a nearly complete skeleton called Ardi.
> 
> Although the earliest hominids were capable of upright walking, they probably didn’t get around exactly as we do today. They retained primitive features—such as long, curved fingers and toes as well as longer arms and shorter legs—that indicate they spent time in trees. It’s not until the emergence of H. erectus 1.89 million years ago that hominids grew tall, evolved long legs and became completely terrestrial creatures._​
Click to expand...


Your basic circular reasoning fallacy.  That is evolution in-a-nutshell.

Before Ardi, you were claiming it was Lucy.  What a contradiction!

No monkeys are bipedal today.  If things in the present help find how things were in the past, then the past monkeys were not bipedal.  They also have small cranial capacity like the past monkeys.  We also do not see any monkeys becoming human.  Humans are humans.  Monkeys are monkeys even though _you _look like a monkey.

So you are wrong again.



bripat9643 said:


> "Macro evolution" is not a scientific term. It's hocus-pocus. There is only evolution. Not all science is experiments. Furthermore, evolution has been tested in the lab with bacteria. We have bacteria resistant to antibiotics because of evolution.



I got the term "macroevolutio" from -- Macroevolution.  How stupid can you be???!!!???!!!

Furthermore, the answer has already been found circa 2011.  Your so-called _evolution_ is behind .

"The cfr gene resides on a plasmid (mobile element) and can easily be transferred from one bacterium to another. The cfr protein transfers chemical groups called methyl groups to the ribosome (protein-making factory) that prohibits antibiotics from binding to the ribosome but does not affect the function of the ribosome. The gene has been found in MRSA bacteria and helps bacteria resist seven classes of antibiotics. This gene is a very powerful ally to the bacteria! It is unknown whether _S. sciuri_ obtained the gene from another bacteria or whether the cfr gene was original to the bacteria and may have acquired mutations that permitted it to still perform the function of methylation but in a way that allowed the bacteria to resist antibiotics. Either way, it is clearly not the evolution of a new gene from “scratch.” *Rather, it is the modification of a current gene that is beneficial to the bacteria in the presence of antibiotics.*

The scientist involved in the study stated, “What we've discovered here is so exciting because it represents a truly new chemical mechanism for methylation. We now have a very clear chemical picture of a very clever mechanism for antibiotic resistance that some bacteria have evolved.” Although the bacteria are obviously not “clever,” God in His infinite wisdom and grace designed bacteria with amazing mechanisms to allow them to adapt in a post-Fall world (see this article for more information). If the scientist by using the word _evolved _means “change,” then yes the bacteria have changed, but they have _not _evolved new genes that would help them evolve from a microbe into a man."

Bacteria Keep “Outsmarting” Antibiotics


----------



## james bond

http://img1.joyreactor.com/pics/post/gif-racoons-cute-5054389.gif

Racoons do it.  Bears do it.

Why monkeys go bipedal for a short period sometimes -- begging for food?  Trying to get attention? 

Not to turn into humans .


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still have found a chimp or ape that is bipedal.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...what? You write like a child.
> 
> Humans are bipedal apes, you imbecile. And all the other apes are at least partially bipedal, and the newly discovered Bili ape appears to be mostly, if not completely, bipedal.
> 
> Just shut up, you fraud. You are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All specimens in the human family tree going back almost 2 million years are fully bipedal.
> 
> Becoming Human: The Evolution of Walking Upright      |     Science     | Smithsonian
> _
> The earliest hominid with the most extensive evidence for bipedalism is the 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus. In 2009, researchers announced the results of more than 15 years of analysis of the species and introduced the world to a nearly complete skeleton called Ardi.
> 
> Although the earliest hominids were capable of upright walking, they probably didn’t get around exactly as we do today. They retained primitive features—such as long, curved fingers and toes as well as longer arms and shorter legs—that indicate they spent time in trees. It’s not until the emergence of H. erectus 1.89 million years ago that hominids grew tall, evolved long legs and became completely terrestrial creatures._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your basic circular reasoning fallacy.  That is evolution in-a-nutshell.
> 
> Before Ardi, you were claiming it was Lucy.  What a contradiction!
> 
> No monkeys are bipedal today.  If things in the present help find how things were in the past, then the past monkeys were not bipedal.  They also have small cranial capacity like the past monkeys.  We also do not see any monkeys becoming human.  Humans are humans.  Monkeys are monkeys even though _you _look like a monkey.
> 
> So you are wrong again.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Macro evolution" is not a scientific term. It's hocus-pocus. There is only evolution. Not all science is experiments. Furthermore, evolution has been tested in the lab with bacteria. We have bacteria resistant to antibiotics because of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got the term "macroevolutio" from -- Macroevolution.  How stupid can you be???!!!???!!!
> 
> Furthermore, the answer has already been found circa 2011.  Your so-called _evolution_ is behind .
> 
> "The cfr gene resides on a plasmid (mobile element) and can easily be transferred from one bacterium to another. The cfr protein transfers chemical groups called methyl groups to the ribosome (protein-making factory) that prohibits antibiotics from binding to the ribosome but does not affect the function of the ribosome. The gene has been found in MRSA bacteria and helps bacteria resist seven classes of antibiotics. This gene is a very powerful ally to the bacteria! It is unknown whether _S. sciuri_ obtained the gene from another bacteria or whether the cfr gene was original to the bacteria and may have acquired mutations that permitted it to still perform the function of methylation but in a way that allowed the bacteria to resist antibiotics. Either way, it is clearly not the evolution of a new gene from “scratch.” *Rather, it is the modification of a current gene that is beneficial to the bacteria in the presence of antibiotics.*
> 
> The scientist involved in the study stated, “What we've discovered here is so exciting because it represents a truly new chemical mechanism for methylation. We now have a very clear chemical picture of a very clever mechanism for antibiotic resistance that some bacteria have evolved.” Although the bacteria are obviously not “clever,” God in His infinite wisdom and grace designed bacteria with amazing mechanisms to allow them to adapt in a post-Fall world (see this article for more information). If the scientist by using the word _evolved _means “change,” then yes the bacteria have changed, but they have _not _evolved new genes that would help them evolve from a microbe into a man."
> 
> Bacteria Keep “Outsmarting” Antibiotics
Click to expand...


Thats great about the gods designing bacteria. Be sure to thank them for designing the cancer cell. A masterstroke of design.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> The Bible doesn't promote bad science as truth: Is the Bible Scientifically Accurate?



The Bibles promote bad science, errors and inconsistencies as science.


https://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bible-inconsistencies.pdf


----------



## DOTR

james bond said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The text of the Bible is thousands of years old, yet it remains perfectly accurate in everything it says.  _*This is especially noteworthy in the field of science.*_  The science which backs up the Bible are many:  The law of biogenesis, the law of thermodynamics, countless stars (God would cause Abraham’s descendants to multiply so that they would be as countless as the stars of the sky.), ship engineering (the instructions of how to build a very large ship are in the Bible from God to Noah), sewage and waste disposal, blood the liquid of life, germs, labor fever and dealing with dead bodies, quarantine, laws of food consumption, sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision, global flood, archaeological accuracy and more are in the Bible and science backs it up.  Just fall to your knees and give it up now.
> 
> Science and the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Bibles are the only books you ever need to read.... assuming you want to forever be ignorant.
> 
> Bible: Science and History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that.  We still need science texts.  Just not evolution texts except for microevolution.  The eternal universe was believed for many centuries, but didn't make a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with your excluding texts on “evilution” is that many complimentary sciences support biological evolution.
> 
> I’m afraid you will have to learn to live with the knowledge and enlightenment that moved western civilization out of the Christian imposed Dark Ages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had waited on anyone but Christians to advance science you would still be waiting. Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk and George Lamaitre (Big Bang Theory) was a priest to name two examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Creation scientists are very up-to-date on science matters.  More than secular or atheist scientists in some ways.  Georges Lemaitre was the first to propose that the universe was expanding.  You are jumping to conclusions stating it had to do with BBT.
> 
> Creation scientists - creation.com
> 
> Now, can you name a couple of secular scientists that showed anything to do with evolution that was observable, testable and falsifiable?  Us so called "slow" creationists will believe it if you do.
Click to expand...


  Well no...I’m not.  Lemaitre called it the “primeval atom” and predicted the discovery of cosmic background radiation. 

   And no I’m not interested in showing you anything. If you want to ignore evolution I don’t care. You aren’t a doctor or a biologist are you? Your religious beliefs are your own and you should be left to them.


----------



## LittleNipper

Is the Bible incompatible with Science? Here is what one doctor reveals: What Christians Should Know: Is Faith Compatible with Science?


----------



## Hollie

As science texts, the bibles are horrible.


Bible: Science and History


----------



## DOTR

Hollie said:


> https://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bible-inconsistencies.pdf



Marvin Zelkowitz...hmmmmm.  And I see he recommends books by Israel Finklestein and another by Elliot Friedman.


----------



## Hollie

DOTR said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bible-inconsistencies.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marvin Zelkowitz...hmmmmm.  And I see he recommends books by Israel Finklestein and another by Elliot Friedman.
Click to expand...


Ahh, you're on the event horizon of a conspiracy theory.


----------



## DOTR

Hollie said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bible-inconsistencies.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marvin Zelkowitz...hmmmmm.  And I see he recommends books by Israel Finklestein and another by Elliot Friedman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh, you're on the event horizon of a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...


   “Oy vey he noticed!”


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> As science texts, the bibles are horrible.
> 
> 
> Bible: Science and History


Here is a truthful thought: Scientific Facts and Christian Faith: How are they Compatible?


----------



## Hollie

DOTR said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bible-inconsistencies.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marvin Zelkowitz...hmmmmm.  And I see he recommends books by Israel Finklestein and another by Elliot Friedman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh, you're on the event horizon of a conspiracy theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Oy vey he noticed!”
Click to expand...


Gee, whiz. Your tender sensibilities are offended. 

Don't be offended. The bibles are the only books you need to read.


----------



## Hollie

More errors in the various bibles


An Introduction to Biblical Nonsense


----------



## LittleNipper

The Bible claims that Jesus is the light of the world. The Bible in Revelations also states that there will be no need for the Sun because GOD will be the light. Imagine for a moment that GOD created light and then He establish a source for that light. The reality would be that any star, even trillions of miles away, would already become a source of light already reaching planet earth. In other words, before any problem or knowledge of the speed of light was known by man, GOD through HIS WORD, demonstrated the logical solution.


----------



## DOTR

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana, where is the chicken that became a dinosaur?  If that experiment doesn't happen, then it never did happen and never will happen.  You have LIED and are WRONG once again.  What kind of brain dead are you?



Chickens descend from theropod dinosaurs. They don’t become dinosaurs.


----------



## LittleNipper

There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> The Bible claims that Jesus is the light of the world. The Bible in Revelations also states that there will be no need for the Sun because GOD will be the light. Imagine for a moment that GOD created light and then He establish a source for that light. The reality would be that any star, even trillions of miles away, would already become a source of light already reaching planet earth. In other words, before any problem or knowledge of the speed of light was known by man, GOD through HIS WORD, demonstrated the logical solution.



Why did the gods put the stars millions of light years away to make the appearance of a vast and old universe?

Those gawds, they're such kidders.


----------



## DOTR

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans are bipedal apes,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humans are not apes.  Evos just made that stuff up using circular reasoning and you are repeating their fallacies.  Let's just add another notch to your countless lies you have pooped out of you rear end.  It's no wonder you can't help but lie because you follow the lies master Satan.
Click to expand...


Humans are obviously not apes. But we share the taxonomic classification Hominid with apes.


----------



## DOTR

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible claims that Jesus is the light of the world. The Bible in Revelations also states that there will be no need for the Sun because GOD will be the light. Imagine for a moment that GOD created light and then He establish a source for that light. The reality would be that any star, even trillions of miles away, would already become a source of light already reaching planet earth. In other words, before any problem or knowledge of the speed of light was known by man, GOD through HIS WORD, demonstrated the logical solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the gods put the stars millions of light years away to make the appearance of a vast and old universe?
> 
> Those gawds, they're such kidders.
Click to expand...


  Yeah God should have checked with you first.


----------



## DOTR

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still have found a chimp or ape that is bipedal.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...what? You write like a child.
> 
> Humans are bipedal apes, you imbecile. And all the other apes are at least partially bipedal, and the newly discovered Bili ape appears to be mostly, if not completely, bipedal.
> 
> Just shut up, you fraud. You are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All specimens in the human family tree going back almost 2 million years are fully bipedal.
> 
> Becoming Human: The Evolution of Walking Upright      |     Science     | Smithsonian
> _
> The earliest hominid with the most extensive evidence for bipedalism is the 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus. In 2009, researchers announced the results of more than 15 years of analysis of the species and introduced the world to a nearly complete skeleton called Ardi.
> 
> Although the earliest hominids were capable of upright walking, they probably didn’t get around exactly as we do today. They retained primitive features—such as long, curved fingers and toes as well as longer arms and shorter legs—that indicate they spent time in trees. It’s not until the emergence of H. erectus 1.89 million years ago that hominids grew tall, evolved long legs and became completely terrestrial creatures._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your basic circular reasoning fallacy.  That is evolution in-a-nutshell.
> 
> Before Ardi, you were claiming it was Lucy.  What a contradiction!
> 
> No monkeys are bipedal today.  If things in the present help find how things were in the past, then the past monkeys were not bipedal.  They also have small cranial capacity like the past monkeys.  We also do not see any monkeys becoming human.  Humans are humans.  Monkeys are monkeys even though _you _look like a monkey.
> 
> So you are wrong again.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Macro evolution" is not a scientific term. It's hocus-pocus. There is only evolution. Not all science is experiments. Furthermore, evolution has been tested in the lab with bacteria. We have bacteria resistant to antibiotics because of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got the term "macroevolutio" from -- Macroevolution.  How stupid can you be???!!!???!!!
> 
> Furthermore, the answer has already been found circa 2011.  Your so-called _evolution_ is behind .
> 
> "The cfr gene resides on a plasmid (mobile element) and can easily be transferred from one bacterium to another. The cfr protein transfers chemical groups called methyl groups to the ribosome (protein-making factory) that prohibits antibiotics from binding to the ribosome but does not affect the function of the ribosome. The gene has been found in MRSA bacteria and helps bacteria resist seven classes of antibiotics. This gene is a very powerful ally to the bacteria! It is unknown whether _S. sciuri_ obtained the gene from another bacteria or whether the cfr gene was original to the bacteria and may have acquired mutations that permitted it to still perform the function of methylation but in a way that allowed the bacteria to resist antibiotics. Either way, it is clearly not the evolution of a new gene from “scratch.” *Rather, it is the modification of a current gene that is beneficial to the bacteria in the presence of antibiotics.*
> 
> The scientist involved in the study stated, “What we've discovered here is so exciting because it represents a truly new chemical mechanism for methylation. We now have a very clear chemical picture of a very clever mechanism for antibiotic resistance that some bacteria have evolved.” Although the bacteria are obviously not “clever,” God in His infinite wisdom and grace designed bacteria with amazing mechanisms to allow them to adapt in a post-Fall world (see this article for more information). If the scientist by using the word _evolved _means “change,” then yes the bacteria have changed, but they have _not _evolved new genes that would help them evolve from a microbe into a man."
> 
> Bacteria Keep “Outsmarting” Antibiotics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats great about the gods designing bacteria. Be sure to thank them for designing the cancer cell. A masterstroke of design.
Click to expand...


  And just when I was thinking I couldn’t be less impressed with you. Cancer isn’t a form of bacteria.


----------



## DOTR

Hollie said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bible-inconsistencies.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marvin Zelkowitz...hmmmmm.  And I see he recommends books by Israel Finklestein and another by Elliot Friedman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh, you're on the event horizon of a conspiracy theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Oy vey he noticed!”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, whiz. Your tender sensibilities are offended.
> 
> Don't be offended. The bibles are the only books you need to read.
Click to expand...


  Only for you pharisitical atheists. You are more provincial than you will ever grasp


----------



## Hollie

DOTR said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still have found a chimp or ape that is bipedal.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...what? You write like a child.
> 
> Humans are bipedal apes, you imbecile. And all the other apes are at least partially bipedal, and the newly discovered Bili ape appears to be mostly, if not completely, bipedal.
> 
> Just shut up, you fraud. You are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All specimens in the human family tree going back almost 2 million years are fully bipedal.
> 
> Becoming Human: The Evolution of Walking Upright      |     Science     | Smithsonian
> _
> The earliest hominid with the most extensive evidence for bipedalism is the 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus. In 2009, researchers announced the results of more than 15 years of analysis of the species and introduced the world to a nearly complete skeleton called Ardi.
> 
> Although the earliest hominids were capable of upright walking, they probably didn’t get around exactly as we do today. They retained primitive features—such as long, curved fingers and toes as well as longer arms and shorter legs—that indicate they spent time in trees. It’s not until the emergence of H. erectus 1.89 million years ago that hominids grew tall, evolved long legs and became completely terrestrial creatures._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your basic circular reasoning fallacy.  That is evolution in-a-nutshell.
> 
> Before Ardi, you were claiming it was Lucy.  What a contradiction!
> 
> No monkeys are bipedal today.  If things in the present help find how things were in the past, then the past monkeys were not bipedal.  They also have small cranial capacity like the past monkeys.  We also do not see any monkeys becoming human.  Humans are humans.  Monkeys are monkeys even though _you _look like a monkey.
> 
> So you are wrong again.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Macro evolution" is not a scientific term. It's hocus-pocus. There is only evolution. Not all science is experiments. Furthermore, evolution has been tested in the lab with bacteria. We have bacteria resistant to antibiotics because of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got the term "macroevolutio" from -- Macroevolution.  How stupid can you be???!!!???!!!
> 
> Furthermore, the answer has already been found circa 2011.  Your so-called _evolution_ is behind .
> 
> "The cfr gene resides on a plasmid (mobile element) and can easily be transferred from one bacterium to another. The cfr protein transfers chemical groups called methyl groups to the ribosome (protein-making factory) that prohibits antibiotics from binding to the ribosome but does not affect the function of the ribosome. The gene has been found in MRSA bacteria and helps bacteria resist seven classes of antibiotics. This gene is a very powerful ally to the bacteria! It is unknown whether _S. sciuri_ obtained the gene from another bacteria or whether the cfr gene was original to the bacteria and may have acquired mutations that permitted it to still perform the function of methylation but in a way that allowed the bacteria to resist antibiotics. Either way, it is clearly not the evolution of a new gene from “scratch.” *Rather, it is the modification of a current gene that is beneficial to the bacteria in the presence of antibiotics.*
> 
> The scientist involved in the study stated, “What we've discovered here is so exciting because it represents a truly new chemical mechanism for methylation. We now have a very clear chemical picture of a very clever mechanism for antibiotic resistance that some bacteria have evolved.” Although the bacteria are obviously not “clever,” God in His infinite wisdom and grace designed bacteria with amazing mechanisms to allow them to adapt in a post-Fall world (see this article for more information). If the scientist by using the word _evolved _means “change,” then yes the bacteria have changed, but they have _not _evolved new genes that would help them evolve from a microbe into a man."
> 
> Bacteria Keep “Outsmarting” Antibiotics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats great about the gods designing bacteria. Be sure to thank them for designing the cancer cell. A masterstroke of design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And just when I was thinking I couldn’t be less impressed with you. Cancer isn’t a form of bacteria.
Click to expand...


Try paying attention. My response was to the suggestion of the gods "designing" bacteria. Were the gods selective in their "designs" and not design the cancer cell?


----------



## Hollie

DOTR said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bible-inconsistencies.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marvin Zelkowitz...hmmmmm.  And I see he recommends books by Israel Finklestein and another by Elliot Friedman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh, you're on the event horizon of a conspiracy theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Oy vey he noticed!”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, whiz. Your tender sensibilities are offended.
> 
> Don't be offended. The bibles are the only books you need to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only for you pharisitical atheists. You are more provincial than you will ever grasp
Click to expand...


You hold opinions based on ignorance.


----------



## DOTR

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, you are the number one plagiarizer of that idiot blog,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're the idiot that kept talking about creation.com and wrongly attributing it to me (despite my telling you I use AIG and ICR).  Thus, I finally found an article of theirs I liked and now you don't like it and say I am plagiarizing it with zero evidence.  Zero evidence is what you have for aliens, abiogenesis and we still haven't gotten anything from trying to back-engineer a chicken into a dinosaur or mini-raptor unless you are counting dino chicken nuggets .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OTOH, I did present Louis Pasteur's famous experiment to disprove abiogenesis -- only life begats life and how amino acids can't form proteins outside of the cell due to chilarity.  Moreover, I presented the fine tuning facts and solar wind (including magnetic field and tectonic plates) to discard aliens.  I even added SETI, Elon Musk's theories,Ferdi paradox, Drake equation, great filter and more to explain we should have made contact with ET already.  Yet, you atheists and wrong scientists cannot "believe" even though panspermia has pretty much been ruled out.  You still have not found a living chimp or ape that is bipedal.  Yet, you claim to have the mountain of evidence and that evolution is fact.  So far, the fact is evolution is wrong even though we want to see the chicken raptor .
Click to expand...


 I don’t think panspermia has been entirely ruled out.  Francis Crick was convinced it was the only explanation. And it does solve some molecular clock issues. But that only begs the question of creation by pushing it back to another time and place. 
   There are no aliens so far as science knows.  Nor any reason or evidence to postulate aliens. Life appears to have been a one time event. More than that...complex life seems to have been pushed upwards and onwards through a series (7 I believe) of events that are mind bogglingly unlikely.


----------



## DOTR

Hollie said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...what? You write like a child.
> 
> Humans are bipedal apes, you imbecile. And all the other apes are at least partially bipedal, and the newly discovered Bili ape appears to be mostly, if not completely, bipedal.
> 
> Just shut up, you fraud. You are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> All specimens in the human family tree going back almost 2 million years are fully bipedal.
> 
> Becoming Human: The Evolution of Walking Upright      |     Science     | Smithsonian
> _
> The earliest hominid with the most extensive evidence for bipedalism is the 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus. In 2009, researchers announced the results of more than 15 years of analysis of the species and introduced the world to a nearly complete skeleton called Ardi.
> 
> Although the earliest hominids were capable of upright walking, they probably didn’t get around exactly as we do today. They retained primitive features—such as long, curved fingers and toes as well as longer arms and shorter legs—that indicate they spent time in trees. It’s not until the emergence of H. erectus 1.89 million years ago that hominids grew tall, evolved long legs and became completely terrestrial creatures._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your basic circular reasoning fallacy.  That is evolution in-a-nutshell.
> 
> Before Ardi, you were claiming it was Lucy.  What a contradiction!
> 
> No monkeys are bipedal today.  If things in the present help find how things were in the past, then the past monkeys were not bipedal.  They also have small cranial capacity like the past monkeys.  We also do not see any monkeys becoming human.  Humans are humans.  Monkeys are monkeys even though _you _look like a monkey.
> 
> So you are wrong again.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Macro evolution" is not a scientific term. It's hocus-pocus. There is only evolution. Not all science is experiments. Furthermore, evolution has been tested in the lab with bacteria. We have bacteria resistant to antibiotics because of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got the term "macroevolutio" from -- Macroevolution.  How stupid can you be???!!!???!!!
> 
> Furthermore, the answer has already been found circa 2011.  Your so-called _evolution_ is behind .
> 
> "The cfr gene resides on a plasmid (mobile element) and can easily be transferred from one bacterium to another. The cfr protein transfers chemical groups called methyl groups to the ribosome (protein-making factory) that prohibits antibiotics from binding to the ribosome but does not affect the function of the ribosome. The gene has been found in MRSA bacteria and helps bacteria resist seven classes of antibiotics. This gene is a very powerful ally to the bacteria! It is unknown whether _S. sciuri_ obtained the gene from another bacteria or whether the cfr gene was original to the bacteria and may have acquired mutations that permitted it to still perform the function of methylation but in a way that allowed the bacteria to resist antibiotics. Either way, it is clearly not the evolution of a new gene from “scratch.” *Rather, it is the modification of a current gene that is beneficial to the bacteria in the presence of antibiotics.*
> 
> The scientist involved in the study stated, “What we've discovered here is so exciting because it represents a truly new chemical mechanism for methylation. We now have a very clear chemical picture of a very clever mechanism for antibiotic resistance that some bacteria have evolved.” Although the bacteria are obviously not “clever,” God in His infinite wisdom and grace designed bacteria with amazing mechanisms to allow them to adapt in a post-Fall world (see this article for more information). If the scientist by using the word _evolved _means “change,” then yes the bacteria have changed, but they have _not _evolved new genes that would help them evolve from a microbe into a man."
> 
> Bacteria Keep “Outsmarting” Antibiotics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats great about the gods designing bacteria. Be sure to thank them for designing the cancer cell. A masterstroke of design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And just when I was thinking I couldn’t be less impressed with you. Cancer isn’t a form of bacteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try paying attention. My response was to the suggestion of the gods "designing" bacteria. Were the gods selective in their "designs" and not design the cancer cell?
Click to expand...


Cancer cells were designed?


----------



## DOTR

Hollie said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marvin Zelkowitz...hmmmmm.  And I see he recommends books by Israel Finklestein and another by Elliot Friedman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, you're on the event horizon of a conspiracy theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Oy vey he noticed!”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, whiz. Your tender sensibilities are offended.
> 
> Don't be offended. The bibles are the only books you need to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only for you pharisitical atheists. You are more provincial than you will ever grasp
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You hold opinions based on ignorance.
Click to expand...


  You hold yours based in a provincial and limited worldview...like any other Puritan fundamentalist.


----------



## Hollie

DOTR said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All specimens in the human family tree going back almost 2 million years are fully bipedal.
> 
> Becoming Human: The Evolution of Walking Upright      |     Science     | Smithsonian
> _
> The earliest hominid with the most extensive evidence for bipedalism is the 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus. In 2009, researchers announced the results of more than 15 years of analysis of the species and introduced the world to a nearly complete skeleton called Ardi.
> 
> Although the earliest hominids were capable of upright walking, they probably didn’t get around exactly as we do today. They retained primitive features—such as long, curved fingers and toes as well as longer arms and shorter legs—that indicate they spent time in trees. It’s not until the emergence of H. erectus 1.89 million years ago that hominids grew tall, evolved long legs and became completely terrestrial creatures._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your basic circular reasoning fallacy.  That is evolution in-a-nutshell.
> 
> Before Ardi, you were claiming it was Lucy.  What a contradiction!
> 
> No monkeys are bipedal today.  If things in the present help find how things were in the past, then the past monkeys were not bipedal.  They also have small cranial capacity like the past monkeys.  We also do not see any monkeys becoming human.  Humans are humans.  Monkeys are monkeys even though _you _look like a monkey.
> 
> So you are wrong again.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Macro evolution" is not a scientific term. It's hocus-pocus. There is only evolution. Not all science is experiments. Furthermore, evolution has been tested in the lab with bacteria. We have bacteria resistant to antibiotics because of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got the term "macroevolutio" from -- Macroevolution.  How stupid can you be???!!!???!!!
> 
> Furthermore, the answer has already been found circa 2011.  Your so-called _evolution_ is behind .
> 
> "The cfr gene resides on a plasmid (mobile element) and can easily be transferred from one bacterium to another. The cfr protein transfers chemical groups called methyl groups to the ribosome (protein-making factory) that prohibits antibiotics from binding to the ribosome but does not affect the function of the ribosome. The gene has been found in MRSA bacteria and helps bacteria resist seven classes of antibiotics. This gene is a very powerful ally to the bacteria! It is unknown whether _S. sciuri_ obtained the gene from another bacteria or whether the cfr gene was original to the bacteria and may have acquired mutations that permitted it to still perform the function of methylation but in a way that allowed the bacteria to resist antibiotics. Either way, it is clearly not the evolution of a new gene from “scratch.” *Rather, it is the modification of a current gene that is beneficial to the bacteria in the presence of antibiotics.*
> 
> The scientist involved in the study stated, “What we've discovered here is so exciting because it represents a truly new chemical mechanism for methylation. We now have a very clear chemical picture of a very clever mechanism for antibiotic resistance that some bacteria have evolved.” Although the bacteria are obviously not “clever,” God in His infinite wisdom and grace designed bacteria with amazing mechanisms to allow them to adapt in a post-Fall world (see this article for more information). If the scientist by using the word _evolved _means “change,” then yes the bacteria have changed, but they have _not _evolved new genes that would help them evolve from a microbe into a man."
> 
> Bacteria Keep “Outsmarting” Antibiotics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats great about the gods designing bacteria. Be sure to thank them for designing the cancer cell. A masterstroke of design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And just when I was thinking I couldn’t be less impressed with you. Cancer isn’t a form of bacteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try paying attention. My response was to the suggestion of the gods "designing" bacteria. Were the gods selective in their "designs" and not design the cancer cell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cancer cells were designed?
Click to expand...


Bacteria was designed?

If we are to believe that the gods are responsible for all of creation then we have to accept that things are the way they are because the gods  want them precisely this way.. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes and disease etc., none of which are _essential_ to a world created by the gods. They could have just as easily made things otherwise, they just didn't.


----------



## Hollie

DOTR said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, you're on the event horizon of a conspiracy theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Oy vey he noticed!”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, whiz. Your tender sensibilities are offended.
> 
> Don't be offended. The bibles are the only books you need to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only for you pharisitical atheists. You are more provincial than you will ever grasp
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You hold opinions based on ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You hold yours based in a provincial and limited worldview...like any other Puritan fundamentalist.
Click to expand...


Such an angry zealot.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> but I do have countless lying on your part accusing me of lying and lying about evolution. You got zero evidence
> 
> 
> 
> And then a lie, in the next breath.  You just can't help yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be talking to yourself in the mirror.  Stick out your tongue.  Is it forked shape haha?
> 
> You have zero evidence as your mountain of evidence while you can't help yourself in believing in the lies.  In the Michio Kaku thread, he established God exists through theoretical physics experiment and math.  That is where the truth begins.  Not with Satan.  You know it, but still cannot accept because lying is easier to cover up your foolishness.
Click to expand...

Michio Kaku did not establish that God exists. 

You don't know the meaning of "evidence."  You believe evidence is where the Bible says God created the universe.


----------



## bripat9643

Hollie said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your basic circular reasoning fallacy.  That is evolution in-a-nutshell.
> 
> Before Ardi, you were claiming it was Lucy.  What a contradiction!
> 
> No monkeys are bipedal today.  If things in the present help find how things were in the past, then the past monkeys were not bipedal.  They also have small cranial capacity like the past monkeys.  We also do not see any monkeys becoming human.  Humans are humans.  Monkeys are monkeys even though _you _look like a monkey.
> 
> So you are wrong again.
> 
> I got the term "macroevolutio" from -- Macroevolution.  How stupid can you be???!!!???!!!
> 
> Furthermore, the answer has already been found circa 2011.  Your so-called _evolution_ is behind .
> 
> "The cfr gene resides on a plasmid (mobile element) and can easily be transferred from one bacterium to another. The cfr protein transfers chemical groups called methyl groups to the ribosome (protein-making factory) that prohibits antibiotics from binding to the ribosome but does not affect the function of the ribosome. The gene has been found in MRSA bacteria and helps bacteria resist seven classes of antibiotics. This gene is a very powerful ally to the bacteria! It is unknown whether _S. sciuri_ obtained the gene from another bacteria or whether the cfr gene was original to the bacteria and may have acquired mutations that permitted it to still perform the function of methylation but in a way that allowed the bacteria to resist antibiotics. Either way, it is clearly not the evolution of a new gene from “scratch.” *Rather, it is the modification of a current gene that is beneficial to the bacteria in the presence of antibiotics.*
> 
> The scientist involved in the study stated, “What we've discovered here is so exciting because it represents a truly new chemical mechanism for methylation. We now have a very clear chemical picture of a very clever mechanism for antibiotic resistance that some bacteria have evolved.” Although the bacteria are obviously not “clever,” God in His infinite wisdom and grace designed bacteria with amazing mechanisms to allow them to adapt in a post-Fall world (see this article for more information). If the scientist by using the word _evolved _means “change,” then yes the bacteria have changed, but they have _not _evolved new genes that would help them evolve from a microbe into a man."
> 
> Bacteria Keep “Outsmarting” Antibiotics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats great about the gods designing bacteria. Be sure to thank them for designing the cancer cell. A masterstroke of design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And just when I was thinking I couldn’t be less impressed with you. Cancer isn’t a form of bacteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try paying attention. My response was to the suggestion of the gods "designing" bacteria. Were the gods selective in their "designs" and not design the cancer cell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cancer cells were designed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bacteria was designed?
> 
> If we are to believe that the gods are responsible for all of creation then we have to accept that things are the way they are because the gods  want them precisely this way.. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes and disease etc., none of which are _essential_ to a world created by the gods. They could have just as easily made things otherwise, they just didn't.
Click to expand...

God created the smallpox and polio viruses to show humans how loving and benevolent he is.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still have found a chimp or ape that is bipedal.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...what? You write like a child.
> 
> Humans are bipedal apes, you imbecile. And all the other apes are at least partially bipedal, and the newly discovered Bili ape appears to be mostly, if not completely, bipedal.
> 
> Just shut up, you fraud. You are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All specimens in the human family tree going back almost 2 million years are fully bipedal.
> 
> Becoming Human: The Evolution of Walking Upright      |     Science     | Smithsonian
> _
> The earliest hominid with the most extensive evidence for bipedalism is the 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus. In 2009, researchers announced the results of more than 15 years of analysis of the species and introduced the world to a nearly complete skeleton called Ardi.
> 
> Although the earliest hominids were capable of upright walking, they probably didn’t get around exactly as we do today. They retained primitive features—such as long, curved fingers and toes as well as longer arms and shorter legs—that indicate they spent time in trees. It’s not until the emergence of H. erectus 1.89 million years ago that hominids grew tall, evolved long legs and became completely terrestrial creatures._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your basic circular reasoning fallacy.  That is evolution in-a-nutshell.
> 
> Before Ardi, you were claiming it was Lucy.  What a contradiction!
> 
> No monkeys are bipedal today.  If things in the present help find how things were in the past, then the past monkeys were not bipedal.  They also have small cranial capacity like the past monkeys.  We also do not see any monkeys becoming human.  Humans are humans.  Monkeys are monkeys even though _you _look like a monkey.
> 
> So you are wrong again.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Macro evolution" is not a scientific term. It's hocus-pocus. There is only evolution. Not all science is experiments. Furthermore, evolution has been tested in the lab with bacteria. We have bacteria resistant to antibiotics because of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got the term "macroevolutio" from -- Macroevolution.  How stupid can you be???!!!???!!!
> 
> Furthermore, the answer has already been found circa 2011.  Your so-called _evolution_ is behind .
> 
> "The cfr gene resides on a plasmid (mobile element) and can easily be transferred from one bacterium to another. The cfr protein transfers chemical groups called methyl groups to the ribosome (protein-making factory) that prohibits antibiotics from binding to the ribosome but does not affect the function of the ribosome. The gene has been found in MRSA bacteria and helps bacteria resist seven classes of antibiotics. This gene is a very powerful ally to the bacteria! It is unknown whether _S. sciuri_ obtained the gene from another bacteria or whether the cfr gene was original to the bacteria and may have acquired mutations that permitted it to still perform the function of methylation but in a way that allowed the bacteria to resist antibiotics. Either way, it is clearly not the evolution of a new gene from “scratch.” *Rather, it is the modification of a current gene that is beneficial to the bacteria in the presence of antibiotics.*
> 
> The scientist involved in the study stated, “What we've discovered here is so exciting because it represents a truly new chemical mechanism for methylation. We now have a very clear chemical picture of a very clever mechanism for antibiotic resistance that some bacteria have evolved.” Although the bacteria are obviously not “clever,” God in His infinite wisdom and grace designed bacteria with amazing mechanisms to allow them to adapt in a post-Fall world (see this article for more information). If the scientist by using the word _evolved _means “change,” then yes the bacteria have changed, but they have _not _evolved new genes that would help them evolve from a microbe into a man."
> 
> Bacteria Keep “Outsmarting” Antibiotics
Click to expand...

Learn what the term "circular reasoning" is before you use it in a sentence.  Even if my post is wrong, it's not because of circular reasoning. 

There is a bipedal ape today:  homo sapiens.  I won't bother disputing the rest of your swill because it's too stupid to bother with.  You never address the questions you're asked, so why bother?  Your cut-and-paste eruptions prove nothing.


----------



## bripat9643

LittleNipper said:


> The Bible claims that Jesus is the light of the world. The Bible in Revelations also states that there will be no need for the Sun because GOD will be the light. Imagine for a moment that GOD created light and then He establish a source for that light. The reality would be that any star, even trillions of miles away, would already become a source of light already reaching planet earth. In other words, before any problem or knowledge of the speed of light was known by man, GOD through HIS WORD, demonstrated the logical solution.


_Post hoc_ rationalization supported by nothing.


----------



## bripat9643

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible claims that Jesus is the light of the world. The Bible in Revelations also states that there will be no need for the Sun because GOD will be the light. Imagine for a moment that GOD created light and then He establish a source for that light. The reality would be that any star, even trillions of miles away, would already become a source of light already reaching planet earth. In other words, before any problem or knowledge of the speed of light was known by man, GOD through HIS WORD, demonstrated the logical solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the gods put the stars millions of light years away to make the appearance of a vast and old universe?
> 
> Those gawds, they're such kidders.
Click to expand...

It seems God is always trying to fool us.


----------



## bripat9643

DOTR said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, you are the number one plagiarizer of that idiot blog,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're the idiot that kept talking about creation.com and wrongly attributing it to me (despite my telling you I use AIG and ICR).  Thus, I finally found an article of theirs I liked and now you don't like it and say I am plagiarizing it with zero evidence.  Zero evidence is what you have for aliens, abiogenesis and we still haven't gotten anything from trying to back-engineer a chicken into a dinosaur or mini-raptor unless you are counting dino chicken nuggets .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OTOH, I did present Louis Pasteur's famous experiment to disprove abiogenesis -- only life begats life and how amino acids can't form proteins outside of the cell due to chilarity.  Moreover, I presented the fine tuning facts and solar wind (including magnetic field and tectonic plates) to discard aliens.  I even added SETI, Elon Musk's theories,Ferdi paradox, Drake equation, great filter and more to explain we should have made contact with ET already.  Yet, you atheists and wrong scientists cannot "believe" even though panspermia has pretty much been ruled out.  You still have not found a living chimp or ape that is bipedal.  Yet, you claim to have the mountain of evidence and that evolution is fact.  So far, the fact is evolution is wrong even though we want to see the chicken raptor .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don’t think panspermia has been entirely ruled out.  Francis Crick was convinced it was the only explanation. And it does solve some molecular clock issues. But that only begs the question of creation by pushing it back to another time and place.
> There are no aliens so far as science knows.  Nor any reason or evidence to postulate aliens. Life appears to have been a one time event. More than that...complex life seems to have been pushed upwards and onwards through a series (7 I believe) of events that are mind bogglingly unlikely.
Click to expand...

So far we only know of life on this planet.  We don't have the technology yet to determine if life exists on other planets.


----------



## DOTR

What impresses you as brilliant questions  are really just the stock shallow sophistries of the puritan atheist.
   If God created cancer then your inability to understand the reasons is hardly enough to sow doubt in my mind. God didn’t meet your standards for creation? Let’s see your improved version. 

   Put another way..if there is no reason for cancer, and no God, then why hasnt evolution eliminated it? (I know the answer. But you wouldn’t would you?)


----------



## DOTR

bripat9643 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, you are the number one plagiarizer of that idiot blog,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're the idiot that kept talking about creation.com and wrongly attributing it to me (despite my telling you I use AIG and ICR).  Thus, I finally found an article of theirs I liked and now you don't like it and say I am plagiarizing it with zero evidence.  Zero evidence is what you have for aliens, abiogenesis and we still haven't gotten anything from trying to back-engineer a chicken into a dinosaur or mini-raptor unless you are counting dino chicken nuggets .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OTOH, I did present Louis Pasteur's famous experiment to disprove abiogenesis -- only life begats life and how amino acids can't form proteins outside of the cell due to chilarity.  Moreover, I presented the fine tuning facts and solar wind (including magnetic field and tectonic plates) to discard aliens.  I even added SETI, Elon Musk's theories,Ferdi paradox, Drake equation, great filter and more to explain we should have made contact with ET already.  Yet, you atheists and wrong scientists cannot "believe" even though panspermia has pretty much been ruled out.  You still have not found a living chimp or ape that is bipedal.  Yet, you claim to have the mountain of evidence and that evolution is fact.  So far, the fact is evolution is wrong even though we want to see the chicken raptor .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don’t think panspermia has been entirely ruled out.  Francis Crick was convinced it was the only explanation. And it does solve some molecular clock issues. But that only begs the question of creation by pushing it back to another time and place.
> There are no aliens so far as science knows.  Nor any reason or evidence to postulate aliens. Life appears to have been a one time event. More than that...complex life seems to have been pushed upwards and onwards through a series (7 I believe) of events that are mind bogglingly unlikely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So far we only know of life on this planet.  We don't have the technology yet to determine if life exists on other planets.
Click to expand...


   Nor do they?


----------



## DOTR

bripat9643 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible claims that Jesus is the light of the world. The Bible in Revelations also states that there will be no need for the Sun because GOD will be the light. Imagine for a moment that GOD created light and then He establish a source for that light. The reality would be that any star, even trillions of miles away, would already become a source of light already reaching planet earth. In other words, before any problem or knowledge of the speed of light was known by man, GOD through HIS WORD, demonstrated the logical solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the gods put the stars millions of light years away to make the appearance of a vast and old universe?
> 
> Those gawds, they're such kidders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems God is always trying to fool us.
Click to expand...



  I think God leaves the fools to their own devices.


----------



## abu afak

DOTR said:


> What impresses you as brilliant questions  are really just the stock shallow sophistries of the puritan atheist.
> If *God* created cancer then your inability to understand the reasons is hardly enough to sow doubt in my mind. *God* didn’t meet your standards for creation? Let’s see your improved version.
> 
> Put another way..if there is no reason for cancer, and no *God,* then why hasnt evolution eliminated it? (I know the answer. But you wouldn’t would you?)





DOTR said:


> I think *God* leaves the fools to their own devices.


Let us know when you can post ANY evidence of this 'god'.
Which/Witch 'god' btw?
There are so many, and so many that are contradictory,
and ergo at least 75% are necessarily wrong even if one stepped in it.
`


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still have found a chimp or ape that is bipedal.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...what? You write like a child.
> 
> Humans are bipedal apes, you imbecile. And all the other apes are at least partially bipedal, and the newly discovered Bili ape appears to be mostly, if not completely, bipedal.
> 
> Just shut up, you fraud. You are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All specimens in the human family tree going back almost 2 million years are fully bipedal.
> 
> Becoming Human: The Evolution of Walking Upright      |     Science     | Smithsonian
> _
> The earliest hominid with the most extensive evidence for bipedalism is the 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus. In 2009, researchers announced the results of more than 15 years of analysis of the species and introduced the world to a nearly complete skeleton called Ardi.
> 
> Although the earliest hominids were capable of upright walking, they probably didn’t get around exactly as we do today. They retained primitive features—such as long, curved fingers and toes as well as longer arms and shorter legs—that indicate they spent time in trees. It’s not until the emergence of H. erectus 1.89 million years ago that hominids grew tall, evolved long legs and became completely terrestrial creatures._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your basic circular reasoning fallacy.  That is evolution in-a-nutshell.
> 
> Before Ardi, you were claiming it was Lucy.  What a contradiction!
> 
> No monkeys are bipedal today.  If things in the present help find how things were in the past, then the past monkeys were not bipedal.  They also have small cranial capacity like the past monkeys.  We also do not see any monkeys becoming human.  Humans are humans.  Monkeys are monkeys even though _you _look like a monkey.
> 
> So you are wrong again.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Macro evolution" is not a scientific term. It's hocus-pocus. There is only evolution. Not all science is experiments. Furthermore, evolution has been tested in the lab with bacteria. We have bacteria resistant to antibiotics because of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got the term "macroevolutio" from -- Macroevolution.  How stupid can you be???!!!???!!!
> 
> Furthermore, the answer has already been found circa 2011.  Your so-called _evolution_ is behind .
> 
> "The cfr gene resides on a plasmid (mobile element) and can easily be transferred from one bacterium to another. The cfr protein transfers chemical groups called methyl groups to the ribosome (protein-making factory) that prohibits antibiotics from binding to the ribosome but does not affect the function of the ribosome. The gene has been found in MRSA bacteria and helps bacteria resist seven classes of antibiotics. This gene is a very powerful ally to the bacteria! It is unknown whether _S. sciuri_ obtained the gene from another bacteria or whether the cfr gene was original to the bacteria and may have acquired mutations that permitted it to still perform the function of methylation but in a way that allowed the bacteria to resist antibiotics. Either way, it is clearly not the evolution of a new gene from “scratch.” *Rather, it is the modification of a current gene that is beneficial to the bacteria in the presence of antibiotics.*
> 
> The scientist involved in the study stated, “What we've discovered here is so exciting because it represents a truly new chemical mechanism for methylation. We now have a very clear chemical picture of a very clever mechanism for antibiotic resistance that some bacteria have evolved.” Although the bacteria are obviously not “clever,” God in His infinite wisdom and grace designed bacteria with amazing mechanisms to allow them to adapt in a post-Fall world (see this article for more information). If the scientist by using the word _evolved _means “change,” then yes the bacteria have changed, but they have _not _evolved new genes that would help them evolve from a microbe into a man."
> 
> Bacteria Keep “Outsmarting” Antibiotics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats great about the gods designing bacteria. Be sure to thank them for designing the cancer cell. A masterstroke of design.
Click to expand...


Holy guacamole!!!  YOUR POST #556 IS THE *STUPIDEST,* *STUPIDEST*, *STUPIDEST* STATEMENT IN THE UNIVERSE!!!

I just DESTROYED whiny bripat9643 with his snobby evolution science experiment about bacteria and antibiotics.  He may never show his beotchy face ever on USMB again.  We know there was no NEW gene created.  No modification with descent.  Just modification.  This shows intelligence behind the design as God has allowed.  Further evidence of God.  Furthermore, we learned that there is something in the antibiotic to allow the bacteria to change.  This is the key, key, key. you looney tunes oaf.


----------



## james bond

DOTR said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana, where is the chicken that became a dinosaur?  If that experiment doesn't happen, then it never did happen and never will happen.  You have LIED and are WRONG once again.  What kind of brain dead are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chickens descend from theropod dinosaurs. They don’t become dinosaurs.
Click to expand...


The atheist scientists are trying to reverse-engineer the chicken into a dinosaur because of their faith-based beliefs.

Reverse Engineering Birds’ Beaks Into Dinosaur Bones


----------



## LittleNipper

bripat9643 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats great about the gods designing bacteria. Be sure to thank them for designing the cancer cell. A masterstroke of design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just when I was thinking I couldn’t be less impressed with you. Cancer isn’t a form of bacteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try paying attention. My response was to the suggestion of the gods "designing" bacteria. Were the gods selective in their "designs" and not design the cancer cell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cancer cells were designed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bacteria was designed?
> 
> If we are to believe that the gods are responsible for all of creation then we have to accept that things are the way they are because the gods  want them precisely this way.. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes and disease etc., none of which are _essential_ to a world created by the gods. They could have just as easily made things otherwise, they just didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God created the smallpox and polio viruses to show humans how loving and benevolent he is.
Click to expand...

GOD created benevolent organisms which may now harm individuals only because sin has corrupted everything in the environment including humanity.


----------



## Hollie

DOTR said:


> What impresses you as brilliant questions  are really just the stock shallow sophistries of the puritan atheist.
> If God created cancer then your inability to understand the reasons is hardly enough to sow doubt in my mind. God didn’t meet your standards for creation? Let’s see your improved version.
> 
> Put another way..if there is no reason for cancer, and no God, then why hasnt evolution eliminated it? (I know the answer. But you wouldn’t would you?)



What befuddles you are some pretty basic elements of biological evolution you are ignorant about. 

It is rather ignorant to presume that cancer cells (or any other biological organism) would arbitrarily be eliminated. Biological evolution is a branching tree, not a straight line from "good to bad".  A population of organisms may evolve over time together or may split, with each of its subpopulations evolving in different "directions."  This is apparent with the flu virus that morphs from year to year. 

Otherwise, why did the gawds design the peculiar circumstances of the planetary tilt on its axis, convection currents and the rotation of the earth to create twisters or tornadoes? Such poor design choices. 

I'm sure you can speak to the above on behalf of the gods.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> but I do have countless lying on your part accusing me of lying and lying about evolution. You got zero evidence
> 
> 
> 
> And then a lie, in the next breath.  You just can't help yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be talking to yourself in the mirror.  Stick out your tongue.  Is it forked shape haha?
> 
> You have zero evidence as your mountain of evidence while you can't help yourself in believing in the lies.  In the Michio Kaku thread, he established God exists through theoretical physics experiment and math.  That is where the truth begins.  Not with Satan.  You know it, but still cannot accept because lying is easier to cover up your foolishness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Michio Kaku did not establish that God exists.
> 
> You don't know the meaning of "evidence."  You believe evidence is where the Bible says God created the universe.
Click to expand...


That's Kaku's theory based on his invisible particles experiment.  Then he discovered "God is a mathematician."  Don't ask me to explain his theoretical physics experiment.  He's on the side of secular/atheist science.  That's why the atheists all had their panties in a bunch.  You can read about this in the other thread.

You are wrong again and again and again.  All of the evidence should soften your thinking, but it just softens your already weak brain and hardens your heart.  

Yes, the evidence is the clay tablets (Deutronomy) found centuries ago in a temple.  Over time God "inspired" more books and the collection of books continued to grow.  IOW, God left his autobiography in such a way that his word was discovered over time through different writers.  Today's Bible was formed around 100 AD.  The Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in a cave in 1947 is one of the most famous complete Bible discoveries.

I just provided the evidence while you provided more assertions and poo-poo as usually is the case.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> What impresses you as brilliant questions  are really just the stock shallow sophistries of the puritan atheist.
> If God created cancer then your inability to understand the reasons is hardly enough to sow doubt in my mind. God didn’t meet your standards for creation? Let’s see your improved version.
> 
> Put another way..if there is no reason for cancer, and no God, then why hasnt evolution eliminated it? (I know the answer. But you wouldn’t would you?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What befuddles you are some pretty basic elements of biological evolution you are ignorant about.
> 
> It is rather ignorant to presume that cancer cells (or any other biological organism) would arbitrarily be eliminated. Biological evolution is a branching tree, not a straight line from "good to bad".  A population of organisms may evolve over time together or may split, with each of its subpopulations evolving in different "directions."  This is apparent with the flu virus that morphs from year to year.
> 
> Otherwise, why did the gawds design the peculiar circumstances of the planetary tilt on its axis, convection currents and the rotation of the earth to create twisters or tornadoes? Such poor design choices.
> 
> I'm sure you can speak to the above on behalf of the gods.
Click to expand...

Sin corrupted everything in the environment. This will not be corrected until the New Heaven and the New Earth is established after the White throne Judgment.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> Learn what the term "circular reasoning" is before you use it in a sentence. Even if my post is wrong, it's not because of circular reasoning.
> 
> There is a bipedal ape today: homo sapiens. I won't bother disputing the rest of your swill because it's too stupid to bother with. You never address the questions you're asked, so why bother? Your cut-and-paste eruptions prove nothing.



You are the poster child for circular reasoning, bripat9643.  You just have to stick up your finger, do it in front of mirror and take a selfie.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still have found a chimp or ape that is bipedal.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...what? You write like a child.
> 
> Humans are bipedal apes, you imbecile. And all the other apes are at least partially bipedal, and the newly discovered Bili ape appears to be mostly, if not completely, bipedal.
> 
> Just shut up, you fraud. You are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All specimens in the human family tree going back almost 2 million years are fully bipedal.
> 
> Becoming Human: The Evolution of Walking Upright      |     Science     | Smithsonian
> _
> The earliest hominid with the most extensive evidence for bipedalism is the 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus. In 2009, researchers announced the results of more than 15 years of analysis of the species and introduced the world to a nearly complete skeleton called Ardi.
> 
> Although the earliest hominids were capable of upright walking, they probably didn’t get around exactly as we do today. They retained primitive features—such as long, curved fingers and toes as well as longer arms and shorter legs—that indicate they spent time in trees. It’s not until the emergence of H. erectus 1.89 million years ago that hominids grew tall, evolved long legs and became completely terrestrial creatures._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your basic circular reasoning fallacy.  That is evolution in-a-nutshell.
> 
> Before Ardi, you were claiming it was Lucy.  What a contradiction!
> 
> No monkeys are bipedal today.  If things in the present help find how things were in the past, then the past monkeys were not bipedal.  They also have small cranial capacity like the past monkeys.  We also do not see any monkeys becoming human.  Humans are humans.  Monkeys are monkeys even though _you _look like a monkey.
> 
> So you are wrong again.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Macro evolution" is not a scientific term. It's hocus-pocus. There is only evolution. Not all science is experiments. Furthermore, evolution has been tested in the lab with bacteria. We have bacteria resistant to antibiotics because of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got the term "macroevolutio" from -- Macroevolution.  How stupid can you be???!!!???!!!
> 
> Furthermore, the answer has already been found circa 2011.  Your so-called _evolution_ is behind .
> 
> "The cfr gene resides on a plasmid (mobile element) and can easily be transferred from one bacterium to another. The cfr protein transfers chemical groups called methyl groups to the ribosome (protein-making factory) that prohibits antibiotics from binding to the ribosome but does not affect the function of the ribosome. The gene has been found in MRSA bacteria and helps bacteria resist seven classes of antibiotics. This gene is a very powerful ally to the bacteria! It is unknown whether _S. sciuri_ obtained the gene from another bacteria or whether the cfr gene was original to the bacteria and may have acquired mutations that permitted it to still perform the function of methylation but in a way that allowed the bacteria to resist antibiotics. Either way, it is clearly not the evolution of a new gene from “scratch.” *Rather, it is the modification of a current gene that is beneficial to the bacteria in the presence of antibiotics.*
> 
> The scientist involved in the study stated, “What we've discovered here is so exciting because it represents a truly new chemical mechanism for methylation. We now have a very clear chemical picture of a very clever mechanism for antibiotic resistance that some bacteria have evolved.” Although the bacteria are obviously not “clever,” God in His infinite wisdom and grace designed bacteria with amazing mechanisms to allow them to adapt in a post-Fall world (see this article for more information). If the scientist by using the word _evolved _means “change,” then yes the bacteria have changed, but they have _not _evolved new genes that would help them evolve from a microbe into a man."
> 
> Bacteria Keep “Outsmarting” Antibiotics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats great about the gods designing bacteria. Be sure to thank them for designing the cancer cell. A masterstroke of design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy guacamole!!!  YOUR POST #556 IS THE *STUPIDEST,* *STUPIDEST*, *STUPIDEST* STATEMENT IN THE UNIVERSE!!!
> 
> I just DESTROYED whiny bripat9643 with his snobby evolution science experiment about bacteria and antibiotics.  He may never show his beotchy face ever on USMB again.  We know there was no NEW gene created.  No modification with descent.  Just modification.  This shows intelligence behind the design as God has allowed.  Further evidence of God.  Furthermore, we learned that there is something in the antibiotic to allow the bacteria to change.  This is the key, key, key. you looney tunes oaf.
Click to expand...


A rather frantic tirade that addresses nothing. I've noticed that the hyper-religious tend to behave as you do (screeching rants), when their gods are held accountable.


----------



## DOTR

james bond said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana, where is the chicken that became a dinosaur?  If that experiment doesn't happen, then it never did happen and never will happen.  You have LIED and are WRONG once again.  What kind of brain dead are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chickens descend from theropod dinosaurs. They don’t become dinosaurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The atheist scientists are trying to reverse-engineer the chicken into a dinosaur because of their faith-based beliefs.
> 
> Reverse Engineering Birds’ Beaks Into Dinosaur Bones
Click to expand...


Yeah well that was an interesting article but they won’t be creating dinosaurs. Just malformed chickens.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...what? You write like a child.
> 
> Humans are bipedal apes, you imbecile. And all the other apes are at least partially bipedal, and the newly discovered Bili ape appears to be mostly, if not completely, bipedal.
> 
> Just shut up, you fraud. You are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> All specimens in the human family tree going back almost 2 million years are fully bipedal.
> 
> Becoming Human: The Evolution of Walking Upright      |     Science     | Smithsonian
> _
> The earliest hominid with the most extensive evidence for bipedalism is the 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus. In 2009, researchers announced the results of more than 15 years of analysis of the species and introduced the world to a nearly complete skeleton called Ardi.
> 
> Although the earliest hominids were capable of upright walking, they probably didn’t get around exactly as we do today. They retained primitive features—such as long, curved fingers and toes as well as longer arms and shorter legs—that indicate they spent time in trees. It’s not until the emergence of H. erectus 1.89 million years ago that hominids grew tall, evolved long legs and became completely terrestrial creatures._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your basic circular reasoning fallacy.  That is evolution in-a-nutshell.
> 
> Before Ardi, you were claiming it was Lucy.  What a contradiction!
> 
> No monkeys are bipedal today.  If things in the present help find how things were in the past, then the past monkeys were not bipedal.  They also have small cranial capacity like the past monkeys.  We also do not see any monkeys becoming human.  Humans are humans.  Monkeys are monkeys even though _you _look like a monkey.
> 
> So you are wrong again.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Macro evolution" is not a scientific term. It's hocus-pocus. There is only evolution. Not all science is experiments. Furthermore, evolution has been tested in the lab with bacteria. We have bacteria resistant to antibiotics because of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got the term "macroevolutio" from -- Macroevolution.  How stupid can you be???!!!???!!!
> 
> Furthermore, the answer has already been found circa 2011.  Your so-called _evolution_ is behind .
> 
> "The cfr gene resides on a plasmid (mobile element) and can easily be transferred from one bacterium to another. The cfr protein transfers chemical groups called methyl groups to the ribosome (protein-making factory) that prohibits antibiotics from binding to the ribosome but does not affect the function of the ribosome. The gene has been found in MRSA bacteria and helps bacteria resist seven classes of antibiotics. This gene is a very powerful ally to the bacteria! It is unknown whether _S. sciuri_ obtained the gene from another bacteria or whether the cfr gene was original to the bacteria and may have acquired mutations that permitted it to still perform the function of methylation but in a way that allowed the bacteria to resist antibiotics. Either way, it is clearly not the evolution of a new gene from “scratch.” *Rather, it is the modification of a current gene that is beneficial to the bacteria in the presence of antibiotics.*
> 
> The scientist involved in the study stated, “What we've discovered here is so exciting because it represents a truly new chemical mechanism for methylation. We now have a very clear chemical picture of a very clever mechanism for antibiotic resistance that some bacteria have evolved.” Although the bacteria are obviously not “clever,” God in His infinite wisdom and grace designed bacteria with amazing mechanisms to allow them to adapt in a post-Fall world (see this article for more information). If the scientist by using the word _evolved _means “change,” then yes the bacteria have changed, but they have _not _evolved new genes that would help them evolve from a microbe into a man."
> 
> Bacteria Keep “Outsmarting” Antibiotics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats great about the gods designing bacteria. Be sure to thank them for designing the cancer cell. A masterstroke of design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy guacamole!!!  YOUR POST #556 IS THE *STUPIDEST,* *STUPIDEST*, *STUPIDEST* STATEMENT IN THE UNIVERSE!!!
> 
> I just DESTROYED whiny bripat9643 with his snobby evolution science experiment about bacteria and antibiotics.  He may never show his beotchy face ever on USMB again.  We know there was no NEW gene created.  No modification with descent.  Just modification.  This shows intelligence behind the design as God has allowed.  Further evidence of God.  Furthermore, we learned that there is something in the antibiotic to allow the bacteria to change.  This is the key, key, key. you looney tunes oaf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A rather frantic tirade that addresses nothing. I've noticed that the hyper-religious tend to behave as you do (screeching rants), when their gods are held accountable.
Click to expand...

Does this include  bripat9643 and Fort Fun Indiana?


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just when I was thinking I couldn’t be less impressed with you. Cancer isn’t a form of bacteria.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try paying attention. My response was to the suggestion of the gods "designing" bacteria. Were the gods selective in their "designs" and not design the cancer cell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cancer cells were designed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bacteria was designed?
> 
> If we are to believe that the gods are responsible for all of creation then we have to accept that things are the way they are because the gods  want them precisely this way.. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes and disease etc., none of which are _essential_ to a world created by the gods. They could have just as easily made things otherwise, they just didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God created the smallpox and polio viruses to show humans how loving and benevolent he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> GOD created benevolent organisms which may now harm individuals only because sin has corrupted everything in the environment including humanity.
Click to expand...


That's a rather weak excuse. You are suggesting that many of the "omni's" that religionists slather on their gods are simply false. 

Omnibenevolent gods could snap their magical digits and eliminate the cancer cell. They just don't. Why is that? Are your gods weak and ineffective? They just don't care?

Perhaps they're just busy with their administrative duties.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...what? You write like a child.
> 
> Humans are bipedal apes, you imbecile. And all the other apes are at least partially bipedal, and the newly discovered Bili ape appears to be mostly, if not completely, bipedal.
> 
> Just shut up, you fraud. You are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> All specimens in the human family tree going back almost 2 million years are fully bipedal.
> 
> Becoming Human: The Evolution of Walking Upright      |     Science     | Smithsonian
> _
> The earliest hominid with the most extensive evidence for bipedalism is the 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus. In 2009, researchers announced the results of more than 15 years of analysis of the species and introduced the world to a nearly complete skeleton called Ardi.
> 
> Although the earliest hominids were capable of upright walking, they probably didn’t get around exactly as we do today. They retained primitive features—such as long, curved fingers and toes as well as longer arms and shorter legs—that indicate they spent time in trees. It’s not until the emergence of H. erectus 1.89 million years ago that hominids grew tall, evolved long legs and became completely terrestrial creatures._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your basic circular reasoning fallacy.  That is evolution in-a-nutshell.
> 
> Before Ardi, you were claiming it was Lucy.  What a contradiction!
> 
> No monkeys are bipedal today.  If things in the present help find how things were in the past, then the past monkeys were not bipedal.  They also have small cranial capacity like the past monkeys.  We also do not see any monkeys becoming human.  Humans are humans.  Monkeys are monkeys even though _you _look like a monkey.
> 
> So you are wrong again.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Macro evolution" is not a scientific term. It's hocus-pocus. There is only evolution. Not all science is experiments. Furthermore, evolution has been tested in the lab with bacteria. We have bacteria resistant to antibiotics because of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got the term "macroevolutio" from -- Macroevolution.  How stupid can you be???!!!???!!!
> 
> Furthermore, the answer has already been found circa 2011.  Your so-called _evolution_ is behind .
> 
> "The cfr gene resides on a plasmid (mobile element) and can easily be transferred from one bacterium to another. The cfr protein transfers chemical groups called methyl groups to the ribosome (protein-making factory) that prohibits antibiotics from binding to the ribosome but does not affect the function of the ribosome. The gene has been found in MRSA bacteria and helps bacteria resist seven classes of antibiotics. This gene is a very powerful ally to the bacteria! It is unknown whether _S. sciuri_ obtained the gene from another bacteria or whether the cfr gene was original to the bacteria and may have acquired mutations that permitted it to still perform the function of methylation but in a way that allowed the bacteria to resist antibiotics. Either way, it is clearly not the evolution of a new gene from “scratch.” *Rather, it is the modification of a current gene that is beneficial to the bacteria in the presence of antibiotics.*
> 
> The scientist involved in the study stated, “What we've discovered here is so exciting because it represents a truly new chemical mechanism for methylation. We now have a very clear chemical picture of a very clever mechanism for antibiotic resistance that some bacteria have evolved.” Although the bacteria are obviously not “clever,” God in His infinite wisdom and grace designed bacteria with amazing mechanisms to allow them to adapt in a post-Fall world (see this article for more information). If the scientist by using the word _evolved _means “change,” then yes the bacteria have changed, but they have _not _evolved new genes that would help them evolve from a microbe into a man."
> 
> Bacteria Keep “Outsmarting” Antibiotics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats great about the gods designing bacteria. Be sure to thank them for designing the cancer cell. A masterstroke of design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy guacamole!!!  YOUR POST #556 IS THE *STUPIDEST,* *STUPIDEST*, *STUPIDEST* STATEMENT IN THE UNIVERSE!!!
> 
> I just DESTROYED whiny bripat9643 with his snobby evolution science experiment about bacteria and antibiotics.  He may never show his beotchy face ever on USMB again.  We know there was no NEW gene created.  No modification with descent.  Just modification.  This shows intelligence behind the design as God has allowed.  Further evidence of God.  Furthermore, we learned that there is something in the antibiotic to allow the bacteria to change.  This is the key, key, key. you looney tunes oaf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A rather frantic tirade that addresses nothing. I've noticed that the hyper-religious tend to behave as you do (screeching rants), when their gods are held accountable.
Click to expand...


Just stop now.  You are just adding to YOUR POST #556 IS THE *STUPIDEST,* *STUPIDEST*, *STUPIDEST* STATEMENT IN THE UNIVERSE!!!

Instead, why not provide evidence to counter how bacteria and antibiotics work that we found circa 2011?  You can't because *THERE WAS NO NEW GENE*.

There were several things happening around then that made me question evolution such as how did asexual to sexual reproduction happen?  The doubts all started with the single-cell and how proteins could form outside the cell when amino acids cannot form properly due to chilarity; It can only happen inside the cell.

Obviously, this colossal experimental finding disproving bripat9643's example should make you realize aha, I should stop doing what I have been typing and go regroup.  Any intelligent person would do it.  If something like this happened to me, then my face would turn read and I would go pray and ask for new wisdom.  This actually did happen to me when I compared evolution.berkeley.edu to creation science circa 2011.


----------



## james bond

DOTR said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana, where is the chicken that became a dinosaur?  If that experiment doesn't happen, then it never did happen and never will happen.  You have LIED and are WRONG once again.  What kind of brain dead are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chickens descend from theropod dinosaurs. They don’t become dinosaurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The atheist scientists are trying to reverse-engineer the chicken into a dinosaur because of their faith-based beliefs.
> 
> Reverse Engineering Birds’ Beaks Into Dinosaur Bones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well that was an interesting article but they won’t be creating dinosaurs. Just malformed chickens.
Click to expand...








Yup, that's what happens with mutations.  I think the experiment went from the beak to the legs.  Fort Fun Indiana was so excited to hear that he thought Jurassic Park will be coming to some remote piece of land in his lifetime.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All specimens in the human family tree going back almost 2 million years are fully bipedal.
> 
> Becoming Human: The Evolution of Walking Upright      |     Science     | Smithsonian
> _
> The earliest hominid with the most extensive evidence for bipedalism is the 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus. In 2009, researchers announced the results of more than 15 years of analysis of the species and introduced the world to a nearly complete skeleton called Ardi.
> 
> Although the earliest hominids were capable of upright walking, they probably didn’t get around exactly as we do today. They retained primitive features—such as long, curved fingers and toes as well as longer arms and shorter legs—that indicate they spent time in trees. It’s not until the emergence of H. erectus 1.89 million years ago that hominids grew tall, evolved long legs and became completely terrestrial creatures._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your basic circular reasoning fallacy.  That is evolution in-a-nutshell.
> 
> Before Ardi, you were claiming it was Lucy.  What a contradiction!
> 
> No monkeys are bipedal today.  If things in the present help find how things were in the past, then the past monkeys were not bipedal.  They also have small cranial capacity like the past monkeys.  We also do not see any monkeys becoming human.  Humans are humans.  Monkeys are monkeys even though _you _look like a monkey.
> 
> So you are wrong again.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Macro evolution" is not a scientific term. It's hocus-pocus. There is only evolution. Not all science is experiments. Furthermore, evolution has been tested in the lab with bacteria. We have bacteria resistant to antibiotics because of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got the term "macroevolutio" from -- Macroevolution.  How stupid can you be???!!!???!!!
> 
> Furthermore, the answer has already been found circa 2011.  Your so-called _evolution_ is behind .
> 
> "The cfr gene resides on a plasmid (mobile element) and can easily be transferred from one bacterium to another. The cfr protein transfers chemical groups called methyl groups to the ribosome (protein-making factory) that prohibits antibiotics from binding to the ribosome but does not affect the function of the ribosome. The gene has been found in MRSA bacteria and helps bacteria resist seven classes of antibiotics. This gene is a very powerful ally to the bacteria! It is unknown whether _S. sciuri_ obtained the gene from another bacteria or whether the cfr gene was original to the bacteria and may have acquired mutations that permitted it to still perform the function of methylation but in a way that allowed the bacteria to resist antibiotics. Either way, it is clearly not the evolution of a new gene from “scratch.” *Rather, it is the modification of a current gene that is beneficial to the bacteria in the presence of antibiotics.*
> 
> The scientist involved in the study stated, “What we've discovered here is so exciting because it represents a truly new chemical mechanism for methylation. We now have a very clear chemical picture of a very clever mechanism for antibiotic resistance that some bacteria have evolved.” Although the bacteria are obviously not “clever,” God in His infinite wisdom and grace designed bacteria with amazing mechanisms to allow them to adapt in a post-Fall world (see this article for more information). If the scientist by using the word _evolved _means “change,” then yes the bacteria have changed, but they have _not _evolved new genes that would help them evolve from a microbe into a man."
> 
> Bacteria Keep “Outsmarting” Antibiotics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats great about the gods designing bacteria. Be sure to thank them for designing the cancer cell. A masterstroke of design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy guacamole!!!  YOUR POST #556 IS THE *STUPIDEST,* *STUPIDEST*, *STUPIDEST* STATEMENT IN THE UNIVERSE!!!
> 
> I just DESTROYED whiny bripat9643 with his snobby evolution science experiment about bacteria and antibiotics.  He may never show his beotchy face ever on USMB again.  We know there was no NEW gene created.  No modification with descent.  Just modification.  This shows intelligence behind the design as God has allowed.  Further evidence of God.  Furthermore, we learned that there is something in the antibiotic to allow the bacteria to change.  This is the key, key, key. you looney tunes oaf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A rather frantic tirade that addresses nothing. I've noticed that the hyper-religious tend to behave as you do (screeching rants), when their gods are held accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just stop now.  You are just adding to YOUR POST #556 IS THE *STUPIDEST,* *STUPIDEST*, *STUPIDEST* STATEMENT IN THE UNIVERSE!!!
> 
> Instead, why not provide evidence to counter how bacteria and antibiotics work that we found circa 2011?  You can't because *THERE WAS NO NEW GENE*.
> 
> There were several things happening around then that made me question evolution such as how did asexual to sexual reproduction happen?  The doubts all started with the single-cell and how proteins could form outside the cell when amino acids cannot form properly due to chilarity; It can only happen inside the cell.
> 
> Obviously, this colossal experimental finding disproving bripat9643's example should make you realize aha, I should stop doing what I have been typing and go regroup.  Any intelligent person would do it.  If something like this happened to me, then my face would turn read and I would go pray and ask for new wisdom.  This actually did happen to me when I compared evolution.berkeley.edu to creation science circa 2011.
Click to expand...


A rather frantic tirade that addresses nothing. I've noticed that the hyper-religious tend to behave as you do (screeching rants), when their gods are held accountable


----------



## DOTR

Hollie said:


> It is rather ignorant to presume that cancer cells (or any other biological organism) would arbitrarily be eliminated.
> 
> .



  You are a child who throws around words that seem impressive to you in your hatred. But, like a parrot, you don’t have any understanding of what you mimic by rote.

  I am going to explain to you for the third time now  (and the last) that cancer isn’t an organism.

  That being said I have trouble deciding which of your illogical attempts to correct first. You are like a Russian nesting doll of ignorance.

  Organisms are eliminated all the time. So are traits. (Once again...cancer is neither). Tails were eliminated in homida. Gills were eliminated in the lobed fish which colonized land. Legs were eliminated when even toed ungulates returned to the ocean to give rise to cetaceans. Eyes were eliminated in cave fish.
   So it’s “ignorant” to assume only if you add “arbitrarily”....which you did. Because you are ignorant.
   So “arbitrarily” aside...you make the claim that God shouldn’t have allowed cancer. Good. So what’s the alternative? Why would creatures evolve to have cancer? Isn’t the existence of cancer your stick to beat the possibility of creation?
   Or do you have a third method outside special creation and evolution in mind?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> You harp on Christians because they are unable to produce GOD in a test tube.


Complete nonsense you just made up. You have not a shred of evidence.


----------



## DOTR

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try paying attention. My response was to the suggestion of the gods "designing" bacteria. Were the gods selective in their "designs" and not design the cancer cell?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cancer cells were designed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bacteria was designed?
> 
> If we are to believe that the gods are responsible for all of creation then we have to accept that things are the way they are because the gods  want them precisely this way.. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes and disease etc., none of which are _essential_ to a world created by the gods. They could have just as easily made things otherwise, they just didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God created the smallpox and polio viruses to show humans how loving and benevolent he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> GOD created benevolent organisms which may now harm individuals only because sin has corrupted everything in the environment including humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a rather weak excuse. You are suggesting that many of the "omni's" that religionists slather on their gods are simply false.
> 
> Omnibenevolent gods could snap their magical digits and eliminate the cancer cell. They just don't. Why is that? Are your gods weak and ineffective? They just don't care?
> 
> Perhaps they're just busy with their administrative duties.
Click to expand...


The Christian God is (1) omnipresent (2) omniscient and (3)omnipotent. 

  What God did you just make up that is “omnibenevolent”?


----------



## DOTR

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You harp on Christians because they are unable to produce GOD in a test tube.
> 
> 
> 
> Complete nonsense you just made up. You have not a shred of evidence.
Click to expand...


Can you know that?


----------



## bripat9643

DOTR said:


> What impresses you as brilliant questions  are really just the stock shallow sophistries of the puritan atheist.
> If God created cancer then your inability to understand the reasons is hardly enough to sow doubt in my mind. God didn’t meet your standards for creation? Let’s see your improved version.
> 
> Put another way..if there is no reason for cancer, and no God, then why hasnt evolution eliminated it? (I know the answer. But you wouldn’t would you?)


Why shouldn't we be able to understand the reasons?  Isn't God subject to the rules of logic like the creatures he created?  The Christian believer always attempts to wave away questions about God's justification for what he does as "a mystery of faith."  Sorry, but only a believer is going to accept that answer.  If you can't explain why a rational god might do a particular thing, then you admit he's irrational, not perfect, and tyrannical.

Science doesn't pretend to have an explanation for everything.  Only Christians do that.

However, one reason cancer still exists is the fact that it generally occurs later in life after people have already reproduced.  It therefor doesn't affect the survival of the species.  Combating cancer may take more resources than it's worth to the organism.


----------



## bripat9643

DOTR said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cancer cells were designed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bacteria was designed?
> 
> If we are to believe that the gods are responsible for all of creation then we have to accept that things are the way they are because the gods  want them precisely this way.. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes and disease etc., none of which are _essential_ to a world created by the gods. They could have just as easily made things otherwise, they just didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God created the smallpox and polio viruses to show humans how loving and benevolent he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> GOD created benevolent organisms which may now harm individuals only because sin has corrupted everything in the environment including humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a rather weak excuse. You are suggesting that many of the "omni's" that religionists slather on their gods are simply false.
> 
> Omnibenevolent gods could snap their magical digits and eliminate the cancer cell. They just don't. Why is that? Are your gods weak and ineffective? They just don't care?
> 
> Perhaps they're just busy with their administrative duties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christian God is (1) omnipresent (2) omniscient and (3)omnipotent.
> 
> What God did you just make up that is “omnibenevolent”?
Click to expand...

If God is omniscient, then how can humans have free will?


----------



## bripat9643

DOTR said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible claims that Jesus is the light of the world. The Bible in Revelations also states that there will be no need for the Sun because GOD will be the light. Imagine for a moment that GOD created light and then He establish a source for that light. The reality would be that any star, even trillions of miles away, would already become a source of light already reaching planet earth. In other words, before any problem or knowledge of the speed of light was known by man, GOD through HIS WORD, demonstrated the logical solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the gods put the stars millions of light years away to make the appearance of a vast and old universe?
> 
> Those gawds, they're such kidders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems God is always trying to fool us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think God leaves the fools to their own devices.
Click to expand...

Explain why god made it appear that the universe is billions of years old when it's really only a few thousand years old.


----------



## Hollie

DOTR said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is rather ignorant to presume that cancer cells (or any other biological organism) would arbitrarily be eliminated.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a child who throws around words that seem impressive to you in your hatred. But, like a parrot, you don’t have any understanding of what you mimic by rote.
> 
> I am going to explain to you for the third time now  now (and the last) that cancer isn’t an organism.
> 
> That being said I have trouble deciding which of your illogical attempts to correct first. You are like a Russian nesting doll of ignorance.
> 
> Organisms are eliminated all the time. So are traits. (Once again...cancer is neither). Tails were eliminated in homida. Gills were eliminated in the lobed fish which colonized land. Legs were eliminated when even toed ungulates returned to the ocean to give rise to cetaceans. Eyes were eliminated in cave fish.
> So it’s “ignorant” to assume only if you add “arbitrarily”....which you did. Because you are ignorant.
> So “arbitrarily” aside...you make the claim that God shouldn’t have allowed cancer. Good. So what’s the alternative? Why would creatures evolve to have cancer? Isn’t the existence of cancer your stick to beat the possibility of creation?
> Or do you have a third method outside special creation and evolution in mind?
Click to expand...


You're a bit of the stereotypical angry religionist who is befuddled by the science he doesn't understand. I make no claims as to what the gods should or should not have created. 

As your gods are the author of all, they are responsible for all and that includes their incompetent "designs".


----------



## bripat9643

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try paying attention. My response was to the suggestion of the gods "designing" bacteria. Were the gods selective in their "designs" and not design the cancer cell?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cancer cells were designed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bacteria was designed?
> 
> If we are to believe that the gods are responsible for all of creation then we have to accept that things are the way they are because the gods  want them precisely this way.. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes and disease etc., none of which are _essential_ to a world created by the gods. They could have just as easily made things otherwise, they just didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God created the smallpox and polio viruses to show humans how loving and benevolent he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> GOD created benevolent organisms which may now harm individuals only because sin has corrupted everything in the environment including humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a rather weak excuse. You are suggesting that many of the "omni's" that religionists slather on their gods are simply false.
> 
> Omnibenevolent gods could snap their magical digits and eliminate the cancer cell. They just don't. Why is that? Are your gods weak and ineffective? They just don't care?
> 
> Perhaps they're just busy with their administrative duties.
Click to expand...

It's one of the many mysteries of faith, don't ya know.


----------



## Hollie

DOTR said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cancer cells were designed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bacteria was designed?
> 
> If we are to believe that the gods are responsible for all of creation then we have to accept that things are the way they are because the gods  want them precisely this way.. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes and disease etc., none of which are _essential_ to a world created by the gods. They could have just as easily made things otherwise, they just didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God created the smallpox and polio viruses to show humans how loving and benevolent he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> GOD created benevolent organisms which may now harm individuals only because sin has corrupted everything in the environment including humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a rather weak excuse. You are suggesting that many of the "omni's" that religionists slather on their gods are simply false.
> 
> Omnibenevolent gods could snap their magical digits and eliminate the cancer cell. They just don't. Why is that? Are your gods weak and ineffective? They just don't care?
> 
> Perhaps they're just busy with their administrative duties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christian God is (1) omnipresent (2) omniscient and (3)omnipotent.
> 
> What God did you just make up that is “omnibenevolent”?
Click to expand...


Human attributes assigned to gods crested by man. The omnibenevolent or "all loving" attribute is an attribute typically assigned to the Christian gods. Your limitations to your gods is an argument you need to have with other Christians.

Caliber of weapons and quantity of ammunition will resolve that dilemma.


----------



## DOTR

bripat9643 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible claims that Jesus is the light of the world. The Bible in Revelations also states that there will be no need for the Sun because GOD will be the light. Imagine for a moment that GOD created light and then He establish a source for that light. The reality would be that any star, even trillions of miles away, would already become a source of light already reaching planet earth. In other words, before any problem or knowledge of the speed of light was known by man, GOD through HIS WORD, demonstrated the logical solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the gods put the stars millions of light years away to make the appearance of a vast and old universe?
> 
> Those gawds, they're such kidders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems God is always trying to fool us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think God leaves the fools to their own devices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain why god made it appear that the universe is billions of years old when it's really only a few thousand years old.
Click to expand...


Because it’s billions of years old?


----------



## DOTR

james bond said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana, where is the chicken that became a dinosaur?  If that experiment doesn't happen, then it never did happen and never will happen.  You have LIED and are WRONG once again.  What kind of brain dead are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chickens descend from theropod dinosaurs. They don’t become dinosaurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The atheist scientists are trying to reverse-engineer the chicken into a dinosaur because of their faith-based beliefs.
> 
> Reverse Engineering Birds’ Beaks Into Dinosaur Bones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well that was an interesting article but they won’t be creating dinosaurs. Just malformed chickens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, that's what happens with mutations.  I think the experiment went from the beak to the legs.  Fort Fun Indiana was so excited to hear that he thought Jurassic Park will be coming to some remote piece of land in his lifetime.
Click to expand...


  Well all in fun but...I never saw fort fun Indiana claim he thinks Jurassic park exists.


----------



## bripat9643

DOTR said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible claims that Jesus is the light of the world. The Bible in Revelations also states that there will be no need for the Sun because GOD will be the light. Imagine for a moment that GOD created light and then He establish a source for that light. The reality would be that any star, even trillions of miles away, would already become a source of light already reaching planet earth. In other words, before any problem or knowledge of the speed of light was known by man, GOD through HIS WORD, demonstrated the logical solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the gods put the stars millions of light years away to make the appearance of a vast and old universe?
> 
> Those gawds, they're such kidders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems God is always trying to fool us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think God leaves the fools to their own devices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain why god made it appear that the universe is billions of years old when it's really only a few thousand years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it’s billions of years old?
Click to expand...


So you aren't a creationist then?


----------



## DOTR

bripat9643 said:


> Why shouldn't we be able to understand the reasons?



   That’s a childlike cry isn’t it? i can’t  answer it except to say that you are a limited creature...not the creator. When and if you gain that understanding of the Universe I may just be the first to bow to you.




bripat9643 said:


> Isn't God subject to the rules of logic like the creatures he created?



  Not in my religion.  That sounds more like a Platonic concept. I don’t begrudge them their belief however.




bripat9643 said:


> The Christian believer always attempts to wave away questions about God's justification for what he does as "a mystery of faith."  Sorry, but only a believer is going to accept that answer.



   Only an adult would accept the answer “I don’t know”. But I wouldn’t call it “a mystery of faith “ either. If you are speaking of Mysterium fidei that is entirely different. The Trinity is a mystery of faith.

   How is it you feel that a religious belief must entitle the believer to become omniscient?




bripat9643 said:


> If you can't explain why a rational god might do a particular thing, then you admit he's irrational, not perfect, and tyrannical.



   That’s pretty narcissistic. God satisfies you or *He* is the irrational one? Humans are complete in their knowledge and Spocklike in their rationality?



bripat9643 said:


> Science doesn't pretend to have an explanation for everything.  Only Christians do that.



   Your caricature and a comforting straw man to you. I believe Paul spoke directly to God but I doubt they ever discussed protein folding.



bripat9643 said:


> However, one reason cancer still exists is the fact that it generally occurs later in life after people have already reproduced.  It therefor doesn't affect the survival of the species.  Combating cancer may take more resources than it's worth to the organism.



    No point in eliminating genes that are harmful only after we are statistically dead. A little more complicated than that but let’s agree here.

   My point being that what looks to us like a fault may in fact be the best choice


----------



## DOTR

bripat9643 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bacteria was designed?
> 
> If we are to believe that the gods are responsible for all of creation then we have to accept that things are the way they are because the gods  want them precisely this way.. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes and disease etc., none of which are _essential_ to a world created by the gods. They could have just as easily made things otherwise, they just didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> God created the smallpox and polio viruses to show humans how loving and benevolent he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> GOD created benevolent organisms which may now harm individuals only because sin has corrupted everything in the environment including humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a rather weak excuse. You are suggesting that many of the "omni's" that religionists slather on their gods are simply false.
> 
> Omnibenevolent gods could snap their magical digits and eliminate the cancer cell. They just don't. Why is that? Are your gods weak and ineffective? They just don't care?
> 
> Perhaps they're just busy with their administrative duties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christian God is (1) omnipresent (2) omniscient and (3)omnipotent.
> 
> What God did you just make up that is “omnibenevolent”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If God is omniscient, then how can humans have free will?
Click to expand...


  I never claimed we did.


----------



## DOTR

Hollie said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is rather ignorant to presume that cancer cells (or any other biological organism) would arbitrarily be eliminated.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a child who throws around words that seem impressive to you in your hatred. But, like a parrot, you don’t have any understanding of what you mimic by rote.
> 
> I am going to explain to you for the third time now  now (and the last) that cancer isn’t an organism.
> 
> That being said I have trouble deciding which of your illogical attempts to correct first. You are like a Russian nesting doll of ignorance.
> 
> Organisms are eliminated all the time. So are traits. (Once again...cancer is neither). Tails were eliminated in homida. Gills were eliminated in the lobed fish which colonized land. Legs were eliminated when even toed ungulates returned to the ocean to give rise to cetaceans. Eyes were eliminated in cave fish.
> So it’s “ignorant” to assume only if you add “arbitrarily”....which you did. Because you are ignorant.
> So “arbitrarily” aside...you make the claim that God shouldn’t have allowed cancer. Good. So what’s the alternative? Why would creatures evolve to have cancer? Isn’t the existence of cancer your stick to beat the possibility of creation?
> Or do you have a third method outside special creation and evolution in mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a bit of the stereotypical angry religionist who is befuddled by the science he doesn't understand. I make no claims as to what the gods should or should not have created.
> 
> As your gods are the author of all, they are responsible for all and that includes their incompetent "designs".
Click to expand...


  I’ve got no complaint about the designs...regardless of who or how they were designed.


----------



## DOTR

bripat9643 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the gods put the stars millions of light years away to make the appearance of a vast and old universe?
> 
> Those gawds, they're such kidders.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems God is always trying to fool us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think God leaves the fools to their own devices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain why god made it appear that the universe is billions of years old when it's really only a few thousand years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it’s billions of years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you aren't a creationist then?
Click to expand...


  I’m not myself. But I don’t see why they should be pilloried.


----------



## DOTR

Hollie said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bacteria was designed?
> 
> If we are to believe that the gods are responsible for all of creation then we have to accept that things are the way they are because the gods  want them precisely this way.. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes and disease etc., none of which are _essential_ to a world created by the gods. They could have just as easily made things otherwise, they just didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> God created the smallpox and polio viruses to show humans how loving and benevolent he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> GOD created benevolent organisms which may now harm individuals only because sin has corrupted everything in the environment including humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a rather weak excuse. You are suggesting that many of the "omni's" that religionists slather on their gods are simply false.
> 
> Omnibenevolent gods could snap their magical digits and eliminate the cancer cell. They just don't. Why is that? Are your gods weak and ineffective? They just don't care?
> 
> Perhaps they're just busy with their administrative duties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christian God is (1) omnipresent (2) omniscient and (3)omnipotent.
> 
> What God did you just make up that is “omnibenevolent”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Human attributes assigned to gods crested by man. The omnibenevolent or "all loving" attribute is an attribute typically assigned to the Christian gods. Your limitations to your gods is an argument you need to have with other Christians.
> 
> Caliber of weapons and quantity of ammunition will resolve that dilemma.
Click to expand...


  You are so typical and banal as to be boring. YOU assigned that trait and expect me to go down defending it. A one trick pony you are. 
   What religion are you again?


----------



## bripat9643

DOTR said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems God is always trying to fool us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think God leaves the fools to their own devices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain why god made it appear that the universe is billions of years old when it's really only a few thousand years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it’s billions of years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you aren't a creationist then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’m not myself. But I don’t see why they should be pilloried.
Click to expand...

Because they are promoting Voo-Doo and abracadabra.  They can believe what they want so long as they keep it out of our schools.


----------



## DOTR

Hollie said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is rather ignorant to presume that cancer cells (or any other biological organism) would arbitrarily be eliminated.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a child who throws around words that seem impressive to you in your hatred. But, like a parrot, you don’t have any understanding of what you mimic by rote.
> 
> I am going to explain to you for the third time now  now (and the last) that cancer isn’t an organism.
> 
> That being said I have trouble deciding which of your illogical attempts to correct first. You are like a Russian nesting doll of ignorance.
> 
> Organisms are eliminated all the time. So are traits. (Once again...cancer is neither). Tails were eliminated in homida. Gills were eliminated in the lobed fish which colonized land. Legs were eliminated when even toed ungulates returned to the ocean to give rise to cetaceans. Eyes were eliminated in cave fish.
> So it’s “ignorant” to assume only if you add “arbitrarily”....which you did. Because you are ignorant.
> So “arbitrarily” aside...you make the claim that God shouldn’t have allowed cancer. Good. So what’s the alternative? Why would creatures evolve to have cancer? Isn’t the existence of cancer your stick to beat the possibility of creation?
> Or do you have a third method outside special creation and evolution in mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a bit of the stereotypical angry religionist who is befuddled by the science he doesn't understand. I make no claims as to what the gods should or should not have created.
> 
> As your gods are the author of all, they are responsible for all and that includes their incompetent "designs".
Click to expand...


  You’ve been befuddled since the time your mom first stuck you in front of the TV and let it babysit you. Your attempts at “biology” have been laughable and your attempts at theology pathetic. 
   Given the incoherence of your thoughts so far would I be off base in guessing you also fancy yourself a Marxist?


----------



## DOTR

bripat9643 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think God leaves the fools to their own devices.
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why god made it appear that the universe is billions of years old when it's really only a few thousand years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it’s billions of years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you aren't a creationist then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’m not myself. But I don’t see why they should be pilloried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they are promoting Voo-Doo and abracadabra.  They can believe what they want so long as they keep it out of our schools.
Click to expand...


  Do the schools serve them or vice versus?


----------



## Hollie

DOTR said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created the smallpox and polio viruses to show humans how loving and benevolent he is.
> 
> 
> 
> GOD created benevolent organisms which may now harm individuals only because sin has corrupted everything in the environment including humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a rather weak excuse. You are suggesting that many of the "omni's" that religionists slather on their gods are simply false.
> 
> Omnibenevolent gods could snap their magical digits and eliminate the cancer cell. They just don't. Why is that? Are your gods weak and ineffective? They just don't care?
> 
> Perhaps they're just busy with their administrative duties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christian God is (1) omnipresent (2) omniscient and (3)omnipotent.
> 
> What God did you just make up that is “omnibenevolent”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Human attributes assigned to gods crested by man. The omnibenevolent or "all loving" attribute is an attribute typically assigned to the Christian gods. Your limitations to your gods is an argument you need to have with other Christians.
> 
> Caliber of weapons and quantity of ammunition will resolve that dilemma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so typical and banal as to be boring. YOU assigned that trait and expect me to go down defending it. A one trick pony you are.
> What religion are you again?
Click to expand...


There are at least two dozen verses in the bibles regarding a loving god. It's pretty typical that the more strident apologists are the least familiar with their bibles.


----------



## Hollie

DOTR said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is rather ignorant to presume that cancer cells (or any other biological organism) would arbitrarily be eliminated.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a child who throws around words that seem impressive to you in your hatred. But, like a parrot, you don’t have any understanding of what you mimic by rote.
> 
> I am going to explain to you for the third time now  now (and the last) that cancer isn’t an organism.
> 
> That being said I have trouble deciding which of your illogical attempts to correct first. You are like a Russian nesting doll of ignorance.
> 
> Organisms are eliminated all the time. So are traits. (Once again...cancer is neither). Tails were eliminated in homida. Gills were eliminated in the lobed fish which colonized land. Legs were eliminated when even toed ungulates returned to the ocean to give rise to cetaceans. Eyes were eliminated in cave fish.
> So it’s “ignorant” to assume only if you add “arbitrarily”....which you did. Because you are ignorant.
> So “arbitrarily” aside...you make the claim that God shouldn’t have allowed cancer. Good. So what’s the alternative? Why would creatures evolve to have cancer? Isn’t the existence of cancer your stick to beat the possibility of creation?
> Or do you have a third method outside special creation and evolution in mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a bit of the stereotypical angry religionist who is befuddled by the science he doesn't understand. I make no claims as to what the gods should or should not have created.
> 
> As your gods are the author of all, they are responsible for all and that includes their incompetent "designs".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’ve been befuddled since the time your mom first stuck you in front of the TV and let it babysit you. Your attempts at “biology” have been laughable and your attempts at theology pathetic.
> Given the incoherence of your thoughts so far would I be off base in guessing you also fancy yourself a Marxist?
Click to expand...


I can see you're angry and emotive but if you're going to post comments on a public discussion board in connection with subject matter you don't understand, you shouldn't be surprised at being corrected.


----------



## DOTR

Hollie said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD created benevolent organisms which may now harm individuals only because sin has corrupted everything in the environment including humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a rather weak excuse. You are suggesting that many of the "omni's" that religionists slather on their gods are simply false.
> 
> Omnibenevolent gods could snap their magical digits and eliminate the cancer cell. They just don't. Why is that? Are your gods weak and ineffective? They just don't care?
> 
> Perhaps they're just busy with their administrative duties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christian God is (1) omnipresent (2) omniscient and (3)omnipotent.
> 
> What God did you just make up that is “omnibenevolent”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Human attributes assigned to gods crested by man. The omnibenevolent or "all loving" attribute is an attribute typically assigned to the Christian gods. Your limitations to your gods is an argument you need to have with other Christians.
> 
> Caliber of weapons and quantity of ammunition will resolve that dilemma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so typical and banal as to be boring. YOU assigned that trait and expect me to go down defending it. A one trick pony you are.
> What religion are you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are at least two dozen verses in the bibles regarding a loving god. It's pretty typical that the more strident apologists are the least familiar with their bibles.
Click to expand...


   You have no idea what religion I am. I’ve only pointed out your lack of knowledge...which is an embarrassment to any belief system. 
   Keep thumping your “bibles”. But you should realize I won’t fall for you defining my religion. 
  Oy vey?


----------



## DOTR

Hollie said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is rather ignorant to presume that cancer cells (or any other biological organism) would arbitrarily be eliminated.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a child who throws around words that seem impressive to you in your hatred. But, like a parrot, you don’t have any understanding of what you mimic by rote.
> 
> I am going to explain to you for the third time now  now (and the last) that cancer isn’t an organism.
> 
> That being said I have trouble deciding which of your illogical attempts to correct first. You are like a Russian nesting doll of ignorance.
> 
> Organisms are eliminated all the time. So are traits. (Once again...cancer is neither). Tails were eliminated in homida. Gills were eliminated in the lobed fish which colonized land. Legs were eliminated when even toed ungulates returned to the ocean to give rise to cetaceans. Eyes were eliminated in cave fish.
> So it’s “ignorant” to assume only if you add “arbitrarily”....which you did. Because you are ignorant.
> So “arbitrarily” aside...you make the claim that God shouldn’t have allowed cancer. Good. So what’s the alternative? Why would creatures evolve to have cancer? Isn’t the existence of cancer your stick to beat the possibility of creation?
> Or do you have a third method outside special creation and evolution in mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a bit of the stereotypical angry religionist who is befuddled by the science he doesn't understand. I make no claims as to what the gods should or should not have created.
> 
> As your gods are the author of all, they are responsible for all and that includes their incompetent "designs".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’ve been befuddled since the time your mom first stuck you in front of the TV and let it babysit you. Your attempts at “biology” have been laughable and your attempts at theology pathetic.
> Given the incoherence of your thoughts so far would I be off base in guessing you also fancy yourself a Marxist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see you're angry and emotive but if you're going to post comments on a public discussion board in connection with subject matter you don't understand, you shouldn't be surprised at being corrected.
Click to expand...


   You should stick to subjects you are familiar with.  Like swallowing.


----------



## DOTR

bripat9643 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think God leaves the fools to their own devices.
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why god made it appear that the universe is billions of years old when it's really only a few thousand years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it’s billions of years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you aren't a creationist then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’m not myself. But I don’t see why they should be pilloried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they are promoting Voo-Doo and abracadabra.  They can believe what they want so long as they keep it out of our schools.
Click to expand...


  Do you prefer 64 genders being taught in the schools?


----------



## bripat9643

DOTR said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why god made it appear that the universe is billions of years old when it's really only a few thousand years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it’s billions of years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you aren't a creationist then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’m not myself. But I don’t see why they should be pilloried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they are promoting Voo-Doo and abracadabra.  They can believe what they want so long as they keep it out of our schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you prefer 64 genders being taught in the schools?
Click to expand...

That's also Voo-Doo and abracadabra.


----------



## 007

Death Angel said:


> "The fountains of the deep."
> 
> The Great Flood occurred, not only because of the rain, ite also says the earth "opened up" and released the "fountains of the deep."
> 
> Another huge OCEAN deep within gave up its water for a time.
> 
> Did Geologists Discover ‘Fountains of the Deep’ From Genesis Flood?


_"Might be, may be, could be"_... this is quack speculation.

Even as a Christian, I don't believe there's a HIDDEN OCEAN under the earth's mantel, and I don't believe the earth was created in 6 days and is only 6,000 years old either. You have to completely suspend reality to be a YEC cultist and believe a lot of these quack science theories.


----------



## DOTR

bripat9643 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it’s billions of years old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you aren't a creationist then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’m not myself. But I don’t see why they should be pilloried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they are promoting Voo-Doo and abracadabra.  They can believe what they want so long as they keep it out of our schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you prefer 64 genders being taught in the schools?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's also Voo-Doo and abracadabra.
Click to expand...


  It’s funny but I would say every single one of my teachers, from elementary to high school, was a creationist. The education was top notch. The safety so good we never even thought about it. And my class a phenomenal success.
   Creationists aren’t the problem. I can however point to leftists who have literally broken bones and skulls to shut down college classes.


----------



## OldLady

Really interesting exploration is going on right now in the Black Sea; they say the area was flooded "like Niagara Falls" when the Mediterranean overflowed into it through the straits.

Evidence Noah's Biblical Flood Happened, Says Robert Ballard


----------



## abu afak

OldLady said:


> Really interesting exploration is going on right now in the Black Sea; they say the area was flooded "like Niagara Falls" when the Mediterranean overflowed into it through the straits.
> 
> Evidence Noah's Biblical Flood Happened, Says Robert Ballard


It is an Acknowledged Scientific Fact that the Black Sea flooded as the Mediterranean rose over the edge of the Depression at it's mouth.

This may have created the Legend or a good part of it that was later harnessed by the Ignorants who wrote the Bible.
This has NOTHING to do with Noah's 'Worldwide Flood', had nothing to do with '40 days of rain', and the land around what is now the Black Sea remained untouched.
Jerusalem, ie, is at 2500' altitude, and hasn't been underwater during the existence of Homo sapiens and probably many (tens?) millions of years before that.

Say Goodnight Gracie!
`


----------



## Hollie

DOTR said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is rather ignorant to presume that cancer cells (or any other biological organism) would arbitrarily be eliminated.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a child who throws around words that seem impressive to you in your hatred. But, like a parrot, you don’t have any understanding of what you mimic by rote.
> 
> I am going to explain to you for the third time now  now (and the last) that cancer isn’t an organism.
> 
> That being said I have trouble deciding which of your illogical attempts to correct first. You are like a Russian nesting doll of ignorance.
> 
> Organisms are eliminated all the time. So are traits. (Once again...cancer is neither). Tails were eliminated in homida. Gills were eliminated in the lobed fish which colonized land. Legs were eliminated when even toed ungulates returned to the ocean to give rise to cetaceans. Eyes were eliminated in cave fish.
> So it’s “ignorant” to assume only if you add “arbitrarily”....which you did. Because you are ignorant.
> So “arbitrarily” aside...you make the claim that God shouldn’t have allowed cancer. Good. So what’s the alternative? Why would creatures evolve to have cancer? Isn’t the existence of cancer your stick to beat the possibility of creation?
> Or do you have a third method outside special creation and evolution in mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a bit of the stereotypical angry religionist who is befuddled by the science he doesn't understand. I make no claims as to what the gods should or should not have created.
> 
> As your gods are the author of all, they are responsible for all and that includes their incompetent "designs".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’ve been befuddled since the time your mom first stuck you in front of the TV and let it babysit you. Your attempts at “biology” have been laughable and your attempts at theology pathetic.
> Given the incoherence of your thoughts so far would I be off base in guessing you also fancy yourself a Marxist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see you're angry and emotive but if you're going to post comments on a public discussion board in connection with subject matter you don't understand, you shouldn't be surprised at being corrected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should stick to subjects you are familiar with.  Like swallowing.
Click to expand...


Gee whiz. You behave like the other thumpers in this thresd. When you can't support an argument, you hurl your best attempt at vulgarities.


----------



## DOTR

Hollie said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a child who throws around words that seem impressive to you in your hatred. But, like a parrot, you don’t have any understanding of what you mimic by rote.
> 
> I am going to explain to you for the third time now  now (and the last) that cancer isn’t an organism.
> 
> That being said I have trouble deciding which of your illogical attempts to correct first. You are like a Russian nesting doll of ignorance.
> 
> Organisms are eliminated all the time. So are traits. (Once again...cancer is neither). Tails were eliminated in homida. Gills were eliminated in the lobed fish which colonized land. Legs were eliminated when even toed ungulates returned to the ocean to give rise to cetaceans. Eyes were eliminated in cave fish.
> So it’s “ignorant” to assume only if you add “arbitrarily”....which you did. Because you are ignorant.
> So “arbitrarily” aside...you make the claim that God shouldn’t have allowed cancer. Good. So what’s the alternative? Why would creatures evolve to have cancer? Isn’t the existence of cancer your stick to beat the possibility of creation?
> Or do you have a third method outside special creation and evolution in mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a bit of the stereotypical angry religionist who is befuddled by the science he doesn't understand. I make no claims as to what the gods should or should not have created.
> 
> As your gods are the author of all, they are responsible for all and that includes their incompetent "designs".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’ve been befuddled since the time your mom first stuck you in front of the TV and let it babysit you. Your attempts at “biology” have been laughable and your attempts at theology pathetic.
> Given the incoherence of your thoughts so far would I be off base in guessing you also fancy yourself a Marxist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see you're angry and emotive but if you're going to post comments on a public discussion board in connection with subject matter you don't understand, you shouldn't be surprised at being corrected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should stick to subjects you are familiar with.  Like swallowing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. You behave like the other thumpers in this thresd. When you can't support an argument, you hurl your best attempt at vulgarities.
Click to expand...


    Another bot to the rubber ignore room.


----------



## DOTR

OldLady said:


> Really interesting exploration is going on right now in the Black Sea; they say the area was flooded "like Niagara Falls" when the Mediterranean overflowed into it through the straits.
> 
> Evidence Noah's Biblical Flood Happened, Says Robert Ballard



   Racial memory?


----------



## DOTR

OldLady said:


> Really interesting exploration is going on right now in the Black Sea; they say the area was flooded "like Niagara Falls" when the Mediterranean overflowed into it through the straits.
> 
> Evidence Noah's Biblical Flood Happened, Says Robert Ballard


 
And no that’s not a perjorative.


----------



## LittleNipper

bripat9643 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible claims that Jesus is the light of the world. The Bible in Revelations also states that there will be no need for the Sun because GOD will be the light. Imagine for a moment that GOD created light and then He establish a source for that light. The reality would be that any star, even trillions of miles away, would already become a source of light already reaching planet earth. In other words, before any problem or knowledge of the speed of light was known by man, GOD through HIS WORD, demonstrated the logical solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the gods put the stars millions of light years away to make the appearance of a vast and old universe?
> 
> Those gawds, they're such kidders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems God is always trying to fool us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think God leaves the fools to their own devices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain why god made it appear that the universe is billions of years old when it's really only a few thousand years old.
Click to expand...

Why did Vincent Van Gogh paint Starry Night? Perhaps it was simply HIS way of illustrating  the enormity of eternity and the endless extent of HIS love and power? Why can't GOD do what please HIM?


----------



## LittleNipper

abu afak said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really interesting exploration is going on right now in the Black Sea; they say the area was flooded "like Niagara Falls" when the Mediterranean overflowed into it through the straits.
> 
> Evidence Noah's Biblical Flood Happened, Says Robert Ballard
> 
> 
> 
> It is an Acknowledged Scientific Fact that the Black Sea flooded as the Mediterranean rose over the edge of the Depression at it's mouth.
> 
> This may have created the Legend or a good part of it that was later harnessed by the Ignorants who wrote the Bible.
> This has NOTHING to do with Noah's 'Worldwide Flood', had nothing to do with '40 days of rain', and the land around what is now the Black Sea remained untouched.
> Jerusalem, ie, is at 2500' altitude, and hasn't been underwater during the existence of Homo sapiens and probably many (tens?) millions of years before that.
> 
> Say Goodnight Gracie!
> `
Click to expand...

The entire earth was flooded when comets, asteroids, and the subterranean water within the earth were unleashed --- not to mention 40 days of relentless rains.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible claims that Jesus is the light of the world. The Bible in Revelations also states that there will be no need for the Sun because GOD will be the light. Imagine for a moment that GOD created light and then He establish a source for that light. The reality would be that any star, even trillions of miles away, would already become a source of light already reaching planet earth. In other words, before any problem or knowledge of the speed of light was known by man, GOD through HIS WORD, demonstrated the logical solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the gods put the stars millions of light years away to make the appearance of a vast and old universe?
> 
> Those gawds, they're such kidders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems God is always trying to fool us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think God leaves the fools to their own devices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain why god made it appear that the universe is billions of years old when it's really only a few thousand years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did Vincent Van Gogh paint Starry Night? Perhaps it was simply HIS way of illustrating  the enormity of eternity and the endless extent of HIS love and power? Why can't GOD do what please HIM?
Click to expand...

Sissy dodge


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> The entire earth was flooded when comets, asteroids, and the subterranean water within the earth were unleashed


Never happened


----------



## bripat9643

LittleNipper said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really interesting exploration is going on right now in the Black Sea; they say the area was flooded "like Niagara Falls" when the Mediterranean overflowed into it through the straits.
> 
> Evidence Noah's Biblical Flood Happened, Says Robert Ballard
> 
> 
> 
> It is an Acknowledged Scientific Fact that the Black Sea flooded as the Mediterranean rose over the edge of the Depression at it's mouth.
> 
> This may have created the Legend or a good part of it that was later harnessed by the Ignorants who wrote the Bible.
> This has NOTHING to do with Noah's 'Worldwide Flood', had nothing to do with '40 days of rain', and the land around what is now the Black Sea remained untouched.
> Jerusalem, ie, is at 2500' altitude, and hasn't been underwater during the existence of Homo sapiens and probably many (tens?) millions of years before that.
> 
> Say Goodnight Gracie!
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire earth was flooded when comets, asteroids, and the subterranean water within the earth were unleashed --- not to mention 40 days of relentless rains.
Click to expand...

That was over 4 billion years ago.


----------



## Hollie

OldLady said:


> Really interesting exploration is going on right now in the Black Sea; they say the area was flooded "like Niagara Falls" when the Mediterranean overflowed into it through the straits.
> 
> Evidence Noah's Biblical Flood Happened, Says Robert Ballard



There may be a tendency to read more into this than Dr. Ballard intended. 

Many cultures / societies have flood fables. They seem to fit with legend building of events after the last Ice Age. Neither the 5th Egyptian Dynsaty, nor the Chinese (or the Mayan Civilzation), we’re destroyed by a global flood, 

Noah’s pleasure cruise can be relegated to myth and legend.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really interesting exploration is going on right now in the Black Sea; they say the area was flooded "like Niagara Falls" when the Mediterranean overflowed into it through the straits.
> 
> Evidence Noah's Biblical Flood Happened, Says Robert Ballard
> 
> 
> 
> It is an Acknowledged Scientific Fact that the Black Sea flooded as the Mediterranean rose over the edge of the Depression at it's mouth.
> 
> This may have created the Legend or a good part of it that was later harnessed by the Ignorants who wrote the Bible.
> This has NOTHING to do with Noah's 'Worldwide Flood', had nothing to do with '40 days of rain', and the land around what is now the Black Sea remained untouched.
> Jerusalem, ie, is at 2500' altitude, and hasn't been underwater during the existence of Homo sapiens and probably many (tens?) millions of years before that.
> 
> Say Goodnight Gracie!
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire earth was flooded when comets, asteroids, and the subterranean water within the earth were unleashed --- not to mention 40 days of relentless rains.
Click to expand...


Not to mention your embellished accounts. Are writing a new bible?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> A rather frantic tirade that addresses nothing. I've noticed that the hyper-religious tend to behave as you do (screeching rants), when their gods are held accountable





Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your basic circular reasoning fallacy.  That is evolution in-a-nutshell.
> 
> Before Ardi, you were claiming it was Lucy.  What a contradiction!
> 
> No monkeys are bipedal today.  If things in the present help find how things were in the past, then the past monkeys were not bipedal.  They also have small cranial capacity like the past monkeys.  We also do not see any monkeys becoming human.  Humans are humans.  Monkeys are monkeys even though _you _look like a monkey.
> 
> So you are wrong again.
> 
> I got the term "macroevolutio" from -- Macroevolution.  How stupid can you be???!!!???!!!
> 
> Furthermore, the answer has already been found circa 2011.  Your so-called _evolution_ is behind .
> 
> "The cfr gene resides on a plasmid (mobile element) and can easily be transferred from one bacterium to another. The cfr protein transfers chemical groups called methyl groups to the ribosome (protein-making factory) that prohibits antibiotics from binding to the ribosome but does not affect the function of the ribosome. The gene has been found in MRSA bacteria and helps bacteria resist seven classes of antibiotics. This gene is a very powerful ally to the bacteria! It is unknown whether _S. sciuri_ obtained the gene from another bacteria or whether the cfr gene was original to the bacteria and may have acquired mutations that permitted it to still perform the function of methylation but in a way that allowed the bacteria to resist antibiotics. Either way, it is clearly not the evolution of a new gene from “scratch.” *Rather, it is the modification of a current gene that is beneficial to the bacteria in the presence of antibiotics.*
> 
> The scientist involved in the study stated, “What we've discovered here is so exciting because it represents a truly new chemical mechanism for methylation. We now have a very clear chemical picture of a very clever mechanism for antibiotic resistance that some bacteria have evolved.” Although the bacteria are obviously not “clever,” God in His infinite wisdom and grace designed bacteria with amazing mechanisms to allow them to adapt in a post-Fall world (see this article for more information). If the scientist by using the word _evolved _means “change,” then yes the bacteria have changed, but they have _not _evolved new genes that would help them evolve from a microbe into a man."
> 
> Bacteria Keep “Outsmarting” Antibiotics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats great about the gods designing bacteria. Be sure to thank them for designing the cancer cell. A masterstroke of design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy guacamole!!!  YOUR POST #556 IS THE *STUPIDEST,* *STUPIDEST*, *STUPIDEST* STATEMENT IN THE UNIVERSE!!!
> 
> I just DESTROYED whiny bripat9643 with his snobby evolution science experiment about bacteria and antibiotics.  He may never show his beotchy face ever on USMB again.  We know there was no NEW gene created.  No modification with descent.  Just modification.  This shows intelligence behind the design as God has allowed.  Further evidence of God.  Furthermore, we learned that there is something in the antibiotic to allow the bacteria to change.  This is the key, key, key. you looney tunes oaf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A rather frantic tirade that addresses nothing. I've noticed that the hyper-religious tend to behave as you do (screeching rants), when their gods are held accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just stop now.  You are just adding to YOUR POST #556 IS THE *STUPIDEST,* *STUPIDEST*, *STUPIDEST* STATEMENT IN THE UNIVERSE!!!
> 
> Instead, why not provide evidence to counter how bacteria and antibiotics work that we found circa 2011?  You can't because *THERE WAS NO NEW GENE*.
> 
> There were several things happening around then that made me question evolution such as how did asexual to sexual reproduction happen?  The doubts all started with the single-cell and how proteins could form outside the cell when amino acids cannot form properly due to chilarity; It can only happen inside the cell.
> 
> Obviously, this colossal experimental finding disproving bripat9643's example should make you realize aha, I should stop doing what I have been typing and go regroup.  Any intelligent person would do it.  If something like this happened to me, then my face would turn read and I would go pray and ask for new wisdom.  This actually did happen to me when I compared evolution.berkeley.edu to creation science circa 2011.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A rather frantic tirade that addresses nothing. I've noticed that the hyper-religious tend to behave as you do (screeching rants), when their gods are held accountable
Click to expand...


No tirade whatsoever in my last couple of posts, but to address my well thought out and cogent points that just goes over your head.  Do you hear anything when this happens haha?

So, you missed the no new gene, but modification to old gene with no descent.  That means we found evolution didn't happen when bacteria become immune to an antibiotic.  We also found the path to solve this problem and that is to find what in the antibiotic is causing bacteria to develop immunity to the antibiotic.  We know the gene is not becoming a new gene.

Next, I assume you could not answer my question of how a single-cell that uses asexual reproduction become sexual?  This is another fail of evolution.

Thus, I shall move on once more in trying to discuss these scientific findings circa 2011 with someone who regularly has scientific arguments go right over their head from their opposition .


----------



## james bond

DOTR said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana, where is the chicken that became a dinosaur?  If that experiment doesn't happen, then it never did happen and never will happen.  You have LIED and are WRONG once again.  What kind of brain dead are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chickens descend from theropod dinosaurs. They don’t become dinosaurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The atheist scientists are trying to reverse-engineer the chicken into a dinosaur because of their faith-based beliefs.
> 
> Reverse Engineering Birds’ Beaks Into Dinosaur Bones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well that was an interesting article but they won’t be creating dinosaurs. Just malformed chickens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, that's what happens with mutations.  I think the experiment went from the beak to the legs.  Fort Fun Indiana was so excited to hear that he thought Jurassic Park will be coming to some remote piece of land in his lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well all in fun but...I never saw fort fun Indiana claim he thinks Jurassic park exists.
Click to expand...


No one can convince Fort Fun Indiana different.  To him birds from dinosaurs is a fact.  He thinks the re-engineering of beak and legs will eventually happen or else he has to go back to the drawing board to explain how birds became dinosaurs.  

Creation science doesn't think birds macro-evolved from dinosaurs because their lung structure is different and that their leg structure (femur) does not move significantly when they walk or run.  They articulate their lower leg structure in order to run.  This is so in order for the birds to take air into their lungs.  Otherwise, their air-sac lung will collapse with dino legs which has both upper and lower leg motion.  This air-sac lung gives them enough lung capacity for flight.


----------



## zaangalewa

007 said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The fountains of the deep."
> 
> The Great Flood occurred, not only because of the rain, ite also says the earth "opened up" and released the "fountains of the deep."
> 
> Another huge OCEAN deep within gave up its water for a time.
> 
> Did Geologists Discover ‘Fountains of the Deep’ From Genesis Flood?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Might be, may be, could be"_... this is quack speculation.
> 
> Even as a Christian, I don't believe there's a HIDDEN OCEAN under the earth's mantel, and I don't believe the earth was created in 6 days and is only 6,000 years old either. You have to completely suspend reality to be a YEC cultist and believe a lot of these quack science theories.
Click to expand...


No Christian believes the Earth is 6000 years old  - except he is an idiot, what the people like to show, who say such a nonsense about Christians. First to remember what meant "thousand years"? Very easy: "concrete reality, but uncountable high". The number which is today in the very most near of this expression is the number "googol" = 10^100. Looks even nearly like 1000, isn't it?

One day someone liked to know how old the creation really is - in a concrete number of years. A question of quality became suddenly a question of quantity. A new form to see the world was born. He took the bible and started to find out how old the world is by counting the numbers in the bible and found out "6 thousand years old". If he had found out "6 googol years old" it would had been not any difference. It was a totally new idea - that's the important thing.

Afterwards started a long period of approximations to find out how old the world really is. Depends now what to see under the expression "the world" - what's on its own a kind of placeholder not only for this three things: the earth, the universe or the multiverse (if a multiverse is existing at all, what we never will know). In case of the universe the concrete number of the last approximation is in the moment 13.8 billion years. It was 13.7 billion years before CERN found the god damned difficult to find Higgs particle.

An let me now correct you: The world was created from god in 6 days. That's different. Then followed the 7th day, where god rested and saw everything what he made was always good. What's not so clear today is whether we are now still in the 7th day of creation or whether the 8th day of creation yet had begun. We will see what Jesus will tell us, when he will come back from the place, where he will prepare (¿where he did prepare?) a home for us and all our friends.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A rather frantic tirade that addresses nothing. I've noticed that the hyper-religious tend to behave as you do (screeching rants), when their gods are held accountable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats great about the gods designing bacteria. Be sure to thank them for designing the cancer cell. A masterstroke of design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy guacamole!!!  YOUR POST #556 IS THE *STUPIDEST,* *STUPIDEST*, *STUPIDEST* STATEMENT IN THE UNIVERSE!!!
> 
> I just DESTROYED whiny bripat9643 with his snobby evolution science experiment about bacteria and antibiotics.  He may never show his beotchy face ever on USMB again.  We know there was no NEW gene created.  No modification with descent.  Just modification.  This shows intelligence behind the design as God has allowed.  Further evidence of God.  Furthermore, we learned that there is something in the antibiotic to allow the bacteria to change.  This is the key, key, key. you looney tunes oaf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A rather frantic tirade that addresses nothing. I've noticed that the hyper-religious tend to behave as you do (screeching rants), when their gods are held accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just stop now.  You are just adding to YOUR POST #556 IS THE *STUPIDEST,* *STUPIDEST*, *STUPIDEST* STATEMENT IN THE UNIVERSE!!!
> 
> Instead, why not provide evidence to counter how bacteria and antibiotics work that we found circa 2011?  You can't because *THERE WAS NO NEW GENE*.
> 
> There were several things happening around then that made me question evolution such as how did asexual to sexual reproduction happen?  The doubts all started with the single-cell and how proteins could form outside the cell when amino acids cannot form properly due to chilarity; It can only happen inside the cell.
> 
> Obviously, this colossal experimental finding disproving bripat9643's example should make you realize aha, I should stop doing what I have been typing and go regroup.  Any intelligent person would do it.  If something like this happened to me, then my face would turn read and I would go pray and ask for new wisdom.  This actually did happen to me when I compared evolution.berkeley.edu to creation science circa 2011.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A rather frantic tirade that addresses nothing. I've noticed that the hyper-religious tend to behave as you do (screeching rants), when their gods are held accountable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No tirade whatsoever in my last couple of posts, but to address my well thought out and cogent points that just goes over your head.  Do you hear anything when this happens haha?
> 
> So, you missed the no new gene, but modification to old gene with no descent.  That means we found evolution didn't happen when bacteria become immune to an antibiotic.  We also found the path to solve this problem and that is to find what in the antibiotic is causing bacteria to develop immunity to the antibiotic.  We know the gene is not becoming a new gene.
> 
> Next, I assume you could not answer my question of how a single-cell that uses asexual reproduction become sexual?  This is another fail of evolution.
> 
> Thus, I shall move on once more in trying to discuss these scientific findings circa 2011 with someone who regularly has scientific arguments go right over their head from their opposition .
Click to expand...



I notice that your rants against science and discovery contain references to “we found....” but you fail to supply a source for your claims.

I can understand your reluctance to do so as your ID’iot creation ministries do no research and fail to publish in peer reviewed literature. ID’iot / creationists simply making pronouncements that only appeal to other ID’iot / creationists is not relevant to the science community.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chickens descend from theropod dinosaurs. They don’t become dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The atheist scientists are trying to reverse-engineer the chicken into a dinosaur because of their faith-based beliefs.
> 
> Reverse Engineering Birds’ Beaks Into Dinosaur Bones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well that was an interesting article but they won’t be creating dinosaurs. Just malformed chickens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, that's what happens with mutations.  I think the experiment went from the beak to the legs.  Fort Fun Indiana was so excited to hear that he thought Jurassic Park will be coming to some remote piece of land in his lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well all in fun but...I never saw fort fun Indiana claim he thinks Jurassic park exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one can convince Fort Fun Indiana different.  To him birds from dinosaurs is a fact.  He thinks the re-engineering of beak and legs will eventually happen or else he has to go back to the drawing board to explain how birds became dinosaurs.
> 
> Creation science doesn't think birds macro-evolved from dinosaurs because their lung structure is different and that their leg structure (femur) does not move significantly when they walk or run.  They articulate their lower leg structure in order to run.  This is so in order for the birds to take air into their lungs.  Otherwise, their air-sac lung will collapse with dino legs which has both upper and lower leg motion.  This air-sac lung gives them enough lung capacity for flight.
Click to expand...


ID’iot / creationists also believe that humans wearing buckskin outfits frolicked with dinosaurs just a few thousand years ago. 

It’s just hilarious when ID’iot / creationists try to lecture others on subject matter they don’t understand. 

Were There Dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark? - The Atlantic


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> No one can convince Fort Fun Indiana different.


Because you don't have a shred of evidence. You keep forgetting that is important to anyone not deluded by iron aged fairy tales.


----------



## OldLady

Hollie said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really interesting exploration is going on right now in the Black Sea; they say the area was flooded "like Niagara Falls" when the Mediterranean overflowed into it through the straits.
> 
> Evidence Noah's Biblical Flood Happened, Says Robert Ballard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There may be a tendency to read more into this than Dr. Ballard intended.
> 
> Many cultures / societies have flood fables. They seem to fit with legend building of events after the last Ice Age. Neither the 5th Egyptian Dynsaty, nor the Chinese (or the Mayan Civilzation), we’re destroyed by a global flood,
> 
> Noah’s pleasure cruise can be relegated to myth and legend.
Click to expand...

You folks are getting me wrong.  I don't believe in the Noah story, but I thought it was interesting that the massive flooding that may have started it is being scientifically validated.  Just sharing an other explanation for The Flood.


----------



## Death Angel

Hollie said:


> Noah’s pleasure cruise can be relegated to myth and legend


And you "know" that how?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Death Angel said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noah’s pleasure cruise can be relegated to myth and legend
> 
> 
> 
> And you "know" that how?
Click to expand...

Because it is absurd on every level. We know it as much as we know that rainbow unicorns didn't build thw great pyramids.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noah’s pleasure cruise can be relegated to myth and legend
> 
> 
> 
> And you "know" that how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is absurd on every level. We know it as much as we know that rainbow unicorns didn't build thw great pyramids.
Click to expand...

The Sphinx and the Pyramids likely survived the FLOOD. That would make them pre-Egyptian. Were The Pyramids and the Sphinx Built Before the Great Flood? | Ancient Code OR maybe not!
Here is another explanation:


----------



## Hollie

Death Angel said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noah’s pleasure cruise can be relegated to myth and legend
> 
> 
> 
> And you "know" that how?
Click to expand...


I know there is no evidence of a global flood that occurred 6,000 years ago. I know that the fable proposing that someone named Noah built a boat and gathered two of every species of animal is just nonsense.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noah’s pleasure cruise can be relegated to myth and legend
> 
> 
> 
> And you "know" that how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know there is no evidence of a global flood that occurred 6,000 years ago. I know that the fable proposing that someone named Noah built a boat and gathered two of every species of animal is just nonsense.
Click to expand...

You know no such thing. You have to believe this or you atheistic rhetoric becomes nothing more that! Read the Bible story. Noah didn't collect 2 of every animal. Some he took more of. And Noah and his son's built the Ark and GOD brought the animals to him...


----------



## LittleNipper

re is some contention that the Sphinx did go through the FLOOD of Noah and is much older than Egypt itself. Fascinating Facts About the Great Sphinx of Giza and How It Was Built


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> re is some contention that the Sphinx did go through the FLOOD of Noah and is much older than Egypt itself. Fascinating Facts About the Great Sphinx of Giza and How It Was Built



There is nothing in Egyptian records (the 5th Egyptian Dynasty) that indicates a global flood.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chickens descend from theropod dinosaurs. They don’t become dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The atheist scientists are trying to reverse-engineer the chicken into a dinosaur because of their faith-based beliefs.
> 
> Reverse Engineering Birds’ Beaks Into Dinosaur Bones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well that was an interesting article but they won’t be creating dinosaurs. Just malformed chickens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, that's what happens with mutations.  I think the experiment went from the beak to the legs.  Fort Fun Indiana was so excited to hear that he thought Jurassic Park will be coming to some remote piece of land in his lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well all in fun but...I never saw fort fun Indiana claim he thinks Jurassic park exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one can convince Fort Fun Indiana different.  To him birds from dinosaurs is a fact.  He thinks the re-engineering of beak and legs will eventually happen or else he has to go back to the drawing board to explain how birds became dinosaurs.
> 
> Creation science doesn't think birds macro-evolved from dinosaurs because their lung structure is different and that their leg structure (femur) does not move significantly when they walk or run.  They articulate their lower leg structure in order to run.  This is so in order for the birds to take air into their lungs.  Otherwise, their air-sac lung will collapse with dino legs which has both upper and lower leg motion.  This air-sac lung gives them enough lung capacity for flight.
Click to expand...


Their leg structure is almost identical:

Comparison of T. rex and emu feet


----------



## bripat9643

Hollie said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really interesting exploration is going on right now in the Black Sea; they say the area was flooded "like Niagara Falls" when the Mediterranean overflowed into it through the straits.
> 
> Evidence Noah's Biblical Flood Happened, Says Robert Ballard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There may be a tendency to read more into this than Dr. Ballard intended.
> 
> Many cultures / societies have flood fables. They seem to fit with legend building of events after the last Ice Age. Neither the 5th Egyptian Dynsaty, nor the Chinese (or the Mayan Civilzation), we’re destroyed by a global flood,
> 
> Noah’s pleasure cruise can be relegated to myth and legend.
Click to expand...

Most civilizations originate in major river valleys.  Rivers have often flood.  Hence,  we have a lot flood fables.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chickens descend from theropod dinosaurs. They don’t become dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The atheist scientists are trying to reverse-engineer the chicken into a dinosaur because of their faith-based beliefs.
> 
> Reverse Engineering Birds’ Beaks Into Dinosaur Bones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well that was an interesting article but they won’t be creating dinosaurs. Just malformed chickens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, that's what happens with mutations.  I think the experiment went from the beak to the legs.  Fort Fun Indiana was so excited to hear that he thought Jurassic Park will be coming to some remote piece of land in his lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well all in fun but...I never saw fort fun Indiana claim he thinks Jurassic park exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one can convince Fort Fun Indiana different.  To him birds from dinosaurs is a fact.  He thinks the re-engineering of beak and legs will eventually happen or else he has to go back to the drawing board to explain how birds became dinosaurs.
> 
> Creation science doesn't think birds macro-evolved from dinosaurs because their lung structure is different and that their leg structure (femur) does not move significantly when they walk or run.  They articulate their lower leg structure in order to run.  This is so in order for the birds to take air into their lungs.  Otherwise, their air-sac lung will collapse with dino legs which has both upper and lower leg motion.  This air-sac lung gives them enough lung capacity for flight.
Click to expand...


Dinosaurs and birds have different lung structure?

Bird-like lungs may have helped dinosaurs rule the world


Dinosaurs Had Birdlike Lungs


Dinosaurs breathed like birds : Nature News


Modern birds might have dinosaur lungs to thank for their existence


The ID'iot / creation ministries are a laughable joke.


----------



## Death Angel

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noah’s pleasure cruise can be relegated to myth and legend
> 
> 
> 
> And you "know" that how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is absurd on every level. We know it as much as we know that rainbow unicorns didn't build thw great pyramids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Sphinx and the Pyramids likely survived the FLOOD. That would make them pre-Egyptian. Were The Pyramids and the Sphinx Built Before the Great Flood? | Ancient Code OR maybe not!
> Here is another explanation:
Click to expand...

That video was really well presented. I didn't think I would sit thru the whole thing, but I did. Very interesting. Thank you!


----------



## Death Angel

Hollie said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noah’s pleasure cruise can be relegated to myth and legend
> 
> 
> 
> And you "know" that how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know there is no evidence of a global flood that occurred 6,000 years ago. I know that the fable proposing that someone named Noah built a boat and gathered two of every species of animal is just nonsense.
Click to expand...

You said what you want to BELIEVE. You present ZERO evidence.


----------



## Death Angel

bripat9643 said:


> Most civilizations originate in major river valleys. Rivers have often flood. Hence, we have a lot flood fables


If you lived by the Mississippi and you knew a flood was coming. WHAT WOULD YOU DO? Noah built a great ark to survive a river overflowing the banks?  You deniers are so silly!


----------



## Hollie

Death Angel said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noah’s pleasure cruise can be relegated to myth and legend
> 
> 
> 
> And you "know" that how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know there is no evidence of a global flood that occurred 6,000 years ago. I know that the fable proposing that someone named Noah built a boat and gathered two of every species of animal is just nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said what you want to BELIEVE. You present ZERO evidence.
Click to expand...

My post doesn't include the term "believe". Further, I'm not claiming a global flood ever occured, therefore, I'm not tasked with presenting evidence for a positive claim.


----------



## Hollie

Death Angel said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most civilizations originate in major river valleys. Rivers have often flood. Hence, we have a lot flood fables
> 
> 
> 
> If you lived by the Mississippi and you knew a flood was coming. WHAT WOULD YOU DO? Noah built a great ark to survive a river overflowing the banks?  You deniers are so silly!
Click to expand...


" a river overflowing"?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A rather frantic tirade that addresses nothing. I've noticed that the hyper-religious tend to behave as you do (screeching rants), when their gods are held accountable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy guacamole!!!  YOUR POST #556 IS THE *STUPIDEST,* *STUPIDEST*, *STUPIDEST* STATEMENT IN THE UNIVERSE!!!
> 
> I just DESTROYED whiny bripat9643 with his snobby evolution science experiment about bacteria and antibiotics.  He may never show his beotchy face ever on USMB again.  We know there was no NEW gene created.  No modification with descent.  Just modification.  This shows intelligence behind the design as God has allowed.  Further evidence of God.  Furthermore, we learned that there is something in the antibiotic to allow the bacteria to change.  This is the key, key, key. you looney tunes oaf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A rather frantic tirade that addresses nothing. I've noticed that the hyper-religious tend to behave as you do (screeching rants), when their gods are held accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just stop now.  You are just adding to YOUR POST #556 IS THE *STUPIDEST,* *STUPIDEST*, *STUPIDEST* STATEMENT IN THE UNIVERSE!!!
> 
> Instead, why not provide evidence to counter how bacteria and antibiotics work that we found circa 2011?  You can't because *THERE WAS NO NEW GENE*.
> 
> There were several things happening around then that made me question evolution such as how did asexual to sexual reproduction happen?  The doubts all started with the single-cell and how proteins could form outside the cell when amino acids cannot form properly due to chilarity; It can only happen inside the cell.
> 
> Obviously, this colossal experimental finding disproving bripat9643's example should make you realize aha, I should stop doing what I have been typing and go regroup.  Any intelligent person would do it.  If something like this happened to me, then my face would turn read and I would go pray and ask for new wisdom.  This actually did happen to me when I compared evolution.berkeley.edu to creation science circa 2011.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A rather frantic tirade that addresses nothing. I've noticed that the hyper-religious tend to behave as you do (screeching rants), when their gods are held accountable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No tirade whatsoever in my last couple of posts, but to address my well thought out and cogent points that just goes over your head.  Do you hear anything when this happens haha?
> 
> So, you missed the no new gene, but modification to old gene with no descent.  That means we found evolution didn't happen when bacteria become immune to an antibiotic.  We also found the path to solve this problem and that is to find what in the antibiotic is causing bacteria to develop immunity to the antibiotic.  We know the gene is not becoming a new gene.
> 
> Next, I assume you could not answer my question of how a single-cell that uses asexual reproduction become sexual?  This is another fail of evolution.
> 
> Thus, I shall move on once more in trying to discuss these scientific findings circa 2011 with someone who regularly has scientific arguments go right over their head from their opposition .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I notice that your rants against science and discovery contain references to “we found....” but you fail to supply a source for your claims.
> 
> I can understand your reluctance to do so as your ID’iot creation ministries do no research and fail to publish in peer reviewed literature. ID’iot / creationists simply making pronouncements that only appeal to other ID’iot / creationists is not relevant to the science community.
Click to expand...


More idiocy and you failed to answer my question once more while I have answered most, if not all, of yours.  You are a phony.  You are looney tunes.  If I provide the source, will you apologize and stop replying to my cogent and thoughtful posts with inane blabber -- such as "buh, buh, buh?"


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A rather frantic tirade that addresses nothing. I've noticed that the hyper-religious tend to behave as you do (screeching rants), when their gods are held accountable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A rather frantic tirade that addresses nothing. I've noticed that the hyper-religious tend to behave as you do (screeching rants), when their gods are held accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just stop now.  You are just adding to YOUR POST #556 IS THE *STUPIDEST,* *STUPIDEST*, *STUPIDEST* STATEMENT IN THE UNIVERSE!!!
> 
> Instead, why not provide evidence to counter how bacteria and antibiotics work that we found circa 2011?  You can't because *THERE WAS NO NEW GENE*.
> 
> There were several things happening around then that made me question evolution such as how did asexual to sexual reproduction happen?  The doubts all started with the single-cell and how proteins could form outside the cell when amino acids cannot form properly due to chilarity; It can only happen inside the cell.
> 
> Obviously, this colossal experimental finding disproving bripat9643's example should make you realize aha, I should stop doing what I have been typing and go regroup.  Any intelligent person would do it.  If something like this happened to me, then my face would turn read and I would go pray and ask for new wisdom.  This actually did happen to me when I compared evolution.berkeley.edu to creation science circa 2011.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A rather frantic tirade that addresses nothing. I've noticed that the hyper-religious tend to behave as you do (screeching rants), when their gods are held accountable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No tirade whatsoever in my last couple of posts, but to address my well thought out and cogent points that just goes over your head.  Do you hear anything when this happens haha?
> 
> So, you missed the no new gene, but modification to old gene with no descent.  That means we found evolution didn't happen when bacteria become immune to an antibiotic.  We also found the path to solve this problem and that is to find what in the antibiotic is causing bacteria to develop immunity to the antibiotic.  We know the gene is not becoming a new gene.
> 
> Next, I assume you could not answer my question of how a single-cell that uses asexual reproduction become sexual?  This is another fail of evolution.
> 
> Thus, I shall move on once more in trying to discuss these scientific findings circa 2011 with someone who regularly has scientific arguments go right over their head from their opposition .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I notice that your rants against science and discovery contain references to “we found....” but you fail to supply a source for your claims.
> 
> I can understand your reluctance to do so as your ID’iot creation ministries do no research and fail to publish in peer reviewed literature. ID’iot / creationists simply making pronouncements that only appeal to other ID’iot / creationists is not relevant to the science community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More idiocy and you failed to answer my question once more while I have answered most, if not all, of yours.  You are a phony.  You are looney tunes.  If I provide the source, will you apologize and stop replying to my cogent and thoughtful posts with inane blabber -- such as "buh, buh, buh?"
Click to expand...


Your silly tirades are funny.

I can understand you're embarrassed when your inane and false claims are exposed as fraud, but if you're going to post falsehoods, I have no problem calling them out as such. 

When I address your falsehoods with supported data, think of that as a learning opportunity.

I addressed your nonsense claim about dinosaur and bird lungs with facts that utterly contradicted your unsupported, nonsense claim. 

Why not thank me for helping you expose your ID'iot / creation ministries as charlatans?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one can convince Fort Fun Indiana different.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you don't have a shred of evidence. You keep forgetting that is important to anyone not deluded by iron aged fairy tales.
Click to expand...


Haha.  You're the one who believes the reverse-engineering claim.  Why can't you provide the evidence of how successful or not these experiments were?   They were probably failures and you're afraid to admit it.  The human has turned into a "chicken."

ETA:  If you had a sliver of evidence of the RE experiment's success, then you would be all over it like stink on poop.  However, you do not end up with evidence, so you end up with your usual poop.  That's you in-a-nutshell.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The atheist scientists are trying to reverse-engineer the chicken into a dinosaur because of their faith-based beliefs.
> 
> Reverse Engineering Birds’ Beaks Into Dinosaur Bones
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well that was an interesting article but they won’t be creating dinosaurs. Just malformed chickens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, that's what happens with mutations.  I think the experiment went from the beak to the legs.  Fort Fun Indiana was so excited to hear that he thought Jurassic Park will be coming to some remote piece of land in his lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well all in fun but...I never saw fort fun Indiana claim he thinks Jurassic park exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one can convince Fort Fun Indiana different.  To him birds from dinosaurs is a fact.  He thinks the re-engineering of beak and legs will eventually happen or else he has to go back to the drawing board to explain how birds became dinosaurs.
> 
> Creation science doesn't think birds macro-evolved from dinosaurs because their lung structure is different and that their leg structure (femur) does not move significantly when they walk or run.  They articulate their lower leg structure in order to run.  This is so in order for the birds to take air into their lungs.  Otherwise, their air-sac lung will collapse with dino legs which has both upper and lower leg motion.  This air-sac lung gives them enough lung capacity for flight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their leg structure is almost identical:
> 
> Comparison of T. rex and emu feet
Click to expand...


A T-rex and an emu are not the same size.  The photo is deliberately misleading to show the similarity of the foot.  You're not looking at the upper leg structure or the femur.  They are quite different.






Above is the skeleton of an emu.  Follow the lower leg up to the mid-leg and to the femur or upper leg above it.  The femur is right above the emu's knee.  It does not move as much and this allows for the emu's air-sac lungs to fill with air.  If it had an upper leg like the T-Rex, then it would not be able to breathe.  Its lungs would collapse.  Birds have this unique leg system.

Compare the emu's femur with the T-Rex one.  The T-Rex one has a very mobile femur.






I even picked out a small T-Rex skeleton to show how the femur is different and its motion is way different from the emu.  There you go.  Another case solved by jb.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well that was an interesting article but they won’t be creating dinosaurs. Just malformed chickens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, that's what happens with mutations.  I think the experiment went from the beak to the legs.  Fort Fun Indiana was so excited to hear that he thought Jurassic Park will be coming to some remote piece of land in his lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well all in fun but...I never saw fort fun Indiana claim he thinks Jurassic park exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one can convince Fort Fun Indiana different.  To him birds from dinosaurs is a fact.  He thinks the re-engineering of beak and legs will eventually happen or else he has to go back to the drawing board to explain how birds became dinosaurs.
> 
> Creation science doesn't think birds macro-evolved from dinosaurs because their lung structure is different and that their leg structure (femur) does not move significantly when they walk or run.  They articulate their lower leg structure in order to run.  This is so in order for the birds to take air into their lungs.  Otherwise, their air-sac lung will collapse with dino legs which has both upper and lower leg motion.  This air-sac lung gives them enough lung capacity for flight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their leg structure is almost identical:
> 
> Comparison of T. rex and emu feet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A T-rex and an emu are not the same size.  The photo is deliberately misleading to show the similarity of the foot.  You're not looking at the upper leg structure or the femur.  They are quite different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Above is the skeleton of an emu.  Follow the lower leg up to the mid-leg and to the femur or upper leg above it.  The femur is right above the emu's knee.  It does not move as much and this allows for the emu's air-sac lungs to fill with air.  If it had an upper leg like the T-Rex, then it would not be able to breathe.  Its lungs would collapse.  Birds have this unique leg system.
> 
> Compare the emu's femur with the T-Rex one.  The T-Rex one has a very mobile femur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I even picked out a small T-Rex skeleton to show how the femur is different and its motion is way different from the emu.  There you go.  Another case solved by jb.
Click to expand...


It's a process called "evolution" and a concept described as "fitness for survival" that accounts for differences. While you might insist that t-Rex and other dinosaurs were herded by Noah, t-Rex and the emu existed at very different times.

How did you like my total dismantling of your silly claims regarding dinosaur and bird lungs? You did a typical ID'iot / creationist skedaddle when hit with the facts.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well that was an interesting article but they won’t be creating dinosaurs. Just malformed chickens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, that's what happens with mutations.  I think the experiment went from the beak to the legs.  Fort Fun Indiana was so excited to hear that he thought Jurassic Park will be coming to some remote piece of land in his lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well all in fun but...I never saw fort fun Indiana claim he thinks Jurassic park exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one can convince Fort Fun Indiana different.  To him birds from dinosaurs is a fact.  He thinks the re-engineering of beak and legs will eventually happen or else he has to go back to the drawing board to explain how birds became dinosaurs.
> 
> Creation science doesn't think birds macro-evolved from dinosaurs because their lung structure is different and that their leg structure (femur) does not move significantly when they walk or run.  They articulate their lower leg structure in order to run.  This is so in order for the birds to take air into their lungs.  Otherwise, their air-sac lung will collapse with dino legs which has both upper and lower leg motion.  This air-sac lung gives them enough lung capacity for flight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their leg structure is almost identical:
> 
> Comparison of T. rex and emu feet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A T-rex and an emu are not the same size.  The photo is deliberately misleading to show the similarity of the foot.  You're not looking at the upper leg structure or the femur.  They are quite different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Above is the skeleton of an emu.  Follow the lower leg up to the mid-leg and to the femur or upper leg above it.  The femur is right above the emu's knee.  It does not move as much and this allows for the emu's air-sac lungs to fill with air.  If it had an upper leg like the T-Rex, then it would not be able to breathe.  Its lungs would collapse.  Birds have this unique leg system.
> 
> Compare the emu's femur with the T-Rex one.  The T-Rex one has a very mobile femur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I even picked out a small T-Rex skeleton to show how the femur is different and its motion is way different from the emu.  There you go.  Another case solved by jb.
Click to expand...

In other words, they aren't exact duplicates.  Why would anyone imagine they would be?  What you can't deny is that they are very similar, and the feet are almost identical.

Check these out:


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> The Sphinx and the Pyramids likely survived the FLOOD.


Made up nonsense.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well that was an interesting article but they won’t be creating dinosaurs. Just malformed chickens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, that's what happens with mutations.  I think the experiment went from the beak to the legs.  Fort Fun Indiana was so excited to hear that he thought Jurassic Park will be coming to some remote piece of land in his lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well all in fun but...I never saw fort fun Indiana claim he thinks Jurassic park exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one can convince Fort Fun Indiana different.  To him birds from dinosaurs is a fact.  He thinks the re-engineering of beak and legs will eventually happen or else he has to go back to the drawing board to explain how birds became dinosaurs.
> 
> Creation science doesn't think birds macro-evolved from dinosaurs because their lung structure is different and that their leg structure (femur) does not move significantly when they walk or run.  They articulate their lower leg structure in order to run.  This is so in order for the birds to take air into their lungs.  Otherwise, their air-sac lung will collapse with dino legs which has both upper and lower leg motion.  This air-sac lung gives them enough lung capacity for flight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their leg structure is almost identical:
> 
> Comparison of T. rex and emu feet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A T-rex and an emu are not the same size.  The photo is deliberately misleading to show the similarity of the foot.  You're not looking at the upper leg structure or the femur.  They are quite different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Above is the skeleton of an emu.  Follow the lower leg up to the mid-leg and to the femur or upper leg above it.  The femur is right above the emu's knee.  It does not move as much and this allows for the emu's air-sac lungs to fill with air.  If it had an upper leg like the T-Rex, then it would not be able to breathe.  Its lungs would collapse.  Birds have this unique leg system.
> 
> Compare the emu's femur with the T-Rex one.  The T-Rex one has a very mobile femur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I even picked out a small T-Rex skeleton to show how the femur is different and its motion is way different from the emu.  There you go.  Another case solved by jb.
Click to expand...

Um...hey idiot....we know thereare differences. They are different species, you dumb shit. We know they are related because of their similarities. What kind of fucking moron can't wrap his mind around such a simple concept?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, that's what happens with mutations.  I think the experiment went from the beak to the legs.  Fort Fun Indiana was so excited to hear that he thought Jurassic Park will be coming to some remote piece of land in his lifetime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well all in fun but...I never saw fort fun Indiana claim he thinks Jurassic park exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one can convince Fort Fun Indiana different.  To him birds from dinosaurs is a fact.  He thinks the re-engineering of beak and legs will eventually happen or else he has to go back to the drawing board to explain how birds became dinosaurs.
> 
> Creation science doesn't think birds macro-evolved from dinosaurs because their lung structure is different and that their leg structure (femur) does not move significantly when they walk or run.  They articulate their lower leg structure in order to run.  This is so in order for the birds to take air into their lungs.  Otherwise, their air-sac lung will collapse with dino legs which has both upper and lower leg motion.  This air-sac lung gives them enough lung capacity for flight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their leg structure is almost identical:
> 
> Comparison of T. rex and emu feet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A T-rex and an emu are not the same size.  The photo is deliberately misleading to show the similarity of the foot.  You're not looking at the upper leg structure or the femur.  They are quite different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Above is the skeleton of an emu.  Follow the lower leg up to the mid-leg and to the femur or upper leg above it.  The femur is right above the emu's knee.  It does not move as much and this allows for the emu's air-sac lungs to fill with air.  If it had an upper leg like the T-Rex, then it would not be able to breathe.  Its lungs would collapse.  Birds have this unique leg system.
> 
> Compare the emu's femur with the T-Rex one.  The T-Rex one has a very mobile femur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I even picked out a small T-Rex skeleton to show how the femur is different and its motion is way different from the emu.  There you go.  Another case solved by jb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um...hey idiot....we know thereare differences. They are different species, you dumb shit. We know they are related because of their similarities. What kind of fucking moron can't wrap his mind around such a simple concept?
Click to expand...


You are a bird brain.  If you were a bird and had dino legs, then you'd die real quick because you would not be able to breathe.  You are too stupid to realize the basics of life, so that may not be that bad of outcome for the rest of us in order to not be subject to your bird brain posts .


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> If you were a bird and had dino legs, then you'd die real quick because you would not be able to breathe.


What does that have to do with anything, ya goddamn moron?


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, that's what happens with mutations.  I think the experiment went from the beak to the legs.  Fort Fun Indiana was so excited to hear that he thought Jurassic Park will be coming to some remote piece of land in his lifetime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well all in fun but...I never saw fort fun Indiana claim he thinks Jurassic park exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one can convince Fort Fun Indiana different.  To him birds from dinosaurs is a fact.  He thinks the re-engineering of beak and legs will eventually happen or else he has to go back to the drawing board to explain how birds became dinosaurs.
> 
> Creation science doesn't think birds macro-evolved from dinosaurs because their lung structure is different and that their leg structure (femur) does not move significantly when they walk or run.  They articulate their lower leg structure in order to run.  This is so in order for the birds to take air into their lungs.  Otherwise, their air-sac lung will collapse with dino legs which has both upper and lower leg motion.  This air-sac lung gives them enough lung capacity for flight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their leg structure is almost identical:
> 
> Comparison of T. rex and emu feet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A T-rex and an emu are not the same size.  The photo is deliberately misleading to show the similarity of the foot.  You're not looking at the upper leg structure or the femur.  They are quite different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Above is the skeleton of an emu.  Follow the lower leg up to the mid-leg and to the femur or upper leg above it.  The femur is right above the emu's knee.  It does not move as much and this allows for the emu's air-sac lungs to fill with air.  If it had an upper leg like the T-Rex, then it would not be able to breathe.  Its lungs would collapse.  Birds have this unique leg system.
> 
> Compare the emu's femur with the T-Rex one.  The T-Rex one has a very mobile femur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I even picked out a small T-Rex skeleton to show how the femur is different and its motion is way different from the emu.  There you go.  Another case solved by jb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, they aren't exact duplicates.  Why would anyone imagine they would be?  What you can't deny is that they are very similar, and the feet are almost identical.
> 
> Check these out:
Click to expand...


Is your avatar an exact match to you?  I can see you being a whiny child ready to be timed out.

What part of the bird would not be able to breathe do you not get?  As for the three fingers, the three fingers on birds aren't the same as the three fingers on theropods.  Also, you have a problem in how these theropods grew wings when they didn't have any before.

Finally, it's interesting you changed the T. Rex with an Archaeopteryx without much explanation how it got to be that way.  My reply to that is the fossil record shows that birds lived BEFORE the theropods and that they grew up in a parallel timeline.  This is the coup de grace for the birds from dinosaurs theory.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well all in fun but...I never saw fort fun Indiana claim he thinks Jurassic park exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one can convince Fort Fun Indiana different.  To him birds from dinosaurs is a fact.  He thinks the re-engineering of beak and legs will eventually happen or else he has to go back to the drawing board to explain how birds became dinosaurs.
> 
> Creation science doesn't think birds macro-evolved from dinosaurs because their lung structure is different and that their leg structure (femur) does not move significantly when they walk or run.  They articulate their lower leg structure in order to run.  This is so in order for the birds to take air into their lungs.  Otherwise, their air-sac lung will collapse with dino legs which has both upper and lower leg motion.  This air-sac lung gives them enough lung capacity for flight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their leg structure is almost identical:
> 
> Comparison of T. rex and emu feet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A T-rex and an emu are not the same size.  The photo is deliberately misleading to show the similarity of the foot.  You're not looking at the upper leg structure or the femur.  They are quite different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Above is the skeleton of an emu.  Follow the lower leg up to the mid-leg and to the femur or upper leg above it.  The femur is right above the emu's knee.  It does not move as much and this allows for the emu's air-sac lungs to fill with air.  If it had an upper leg like the T-Rex, then it would not be able to breathe.  Its lungs would collapse.  Birds have this unique leg system.
> 
> Compare the emu's femur with the T-Rex one.  The T-Rex one has a very mobile femur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I even picked out a small T-Rex skeleton to show how the femur is different and its motion is way different from the emu.  There you go.  Another case solved by jb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, they aren't exact duplicates.  Why would anyone imagine they would be?  What you can't deny is that they are very similar, and the feet are almost identical.
> 
> Check these out:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is your avatar an exact match to you?  I can see you being a whiny child ready to be timed out.
> 
> What part of the bird would not be able to breathe do you not get?  As for the three fingers, the three fingers on birds aren't the same as the three fingers on theropods.  Also, you have a problem in how these theropods grew wings when they didn't have any before.
> 
> Finally, it's interesting you changed the T. Rex with an Archaeopteryx without much explanation how it got to be that way.  My reply to that is the fossil record shows that birds lived BEFORE the theropods and that they grew up in a parallel timeline.  This is the coup de grace for the birds from dinosaurs theory.
Click to expand...

I don't even know where to begin dissecting that mass of logical contortions.

BTW, it says "FREE fingers," not "three fingers."

The fossil record does not show that birds lived before theropods.  The latter originated about 233 million years ago.  Archaeopteryx didn't appear until about 150 millions years ago.

What is your justification for claiming that "birds would not be able to breathe?"

"I have problem in how these theropods grew wings?"  How is that any different than explaining how animals grew legs or fingers or teeth or eyes or lungs or tongues?  Before birds appeared, theropod dinosaurs already had feathers and arms.  The step to wings wasn't that much of a leap.


----------



## DOTR

bripat9643 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think God leaves the fools to their own devices.
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why god made it appear that the universe is billions of years old when it's really only a few thousand years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it’s billions of years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you aren't a creationist then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’m not myself. But I don’t see why they should be pilloried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they are promoting Voo-Doo and abracadabra.  They can believe what they want so long as they keep it out of our schools.
Click to expand...


   This is an example of the people who oppose science. This guy was working on *curing aging*! But, like a dissident under communism, he didn’t have the right political skills...and was destroyed for wrongthink. 

The Death of a Dreamer - Quillette


----------



## DOTR

Or this....

   It isn’t creationists who will drive us to a new dark age.


----------



## DOTR

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well that was an interesting article but they won’t be creating dinosaurs. Just malformed chickens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, that's what happens with mutations.  I think the experiment went from the beak to the legs.  Fort Fun Indiana was so excited to hear that he thought Jurassic Park will be coming to some remote piece of land in his lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well all in fun but...I never saw fort fun Indiana claim he thinks Jurassic park exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one can convince Fort Fun Indiana different.  To him birds from dinosaurs is a fact.  He thinks the re-engineering of beak and legs will eventually happen or else he has to go back to the drawing board to explain how birds became dinosaurs.
> 
> Creation science doesn't think birds macro-evolved from dinosaurs because their lung structure is different and that their leg structure (femur) does not move significantly when they walk or run.  They articulate their lower leg structure in order to run.  This is so in order for the birds to take air into their lungs.  Otherwise, their air-sac lung will collapse with dino legs which has both upper and lower leg motion.  This air-sac lung gives them enough lung capacity for flight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their leg structure is almost identical:
> 
> Comparison of T. rex and emu feet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A T-rex and an emu are not the same size.  The photo is deliberately misleading to show the similarity of the foot.  You're not looking at the upper leg structure or the femur.  They are quite different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Above is the skeleton of an emu.  Follow the lower leg up to the mid-leg and to the femur or upper leg above it.  The femur is right above the emu's knee.  It does not move as much and this allows for the emu's air-sac lungs to fill with air.  If it had an upper leg like the T-Rex, then it would not be able to breathe.  Its lungs would collapse.  Birds have this unique leg system.
> 
> Compare the emu's femur with the T-Rex one.  The T-Rex one has a very mobile femur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I even picked out a small T-Rex skeleton to show how the femur is different and its motion is way different from the emu.  There you go.  Another case solved by jb.
Click to expand...


  I don’t know that much about bird evolution but I do know they descend from dinosaurs without a doubt. The thing is I can’t make head or tails of your complaint about lungs.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one can convince Fort Fun Indiana different.  To him birds from dinosaurs is a fact.  He thinks the re-engineering of beak and legs will eventually happen or else he has to go back to the drawing board to explain how birds became dinosaurs.
> 
> Creation science doesn't think birds macro-evolved from dinosaurs because their lung structure is different and that their leg structure (femur) does not move significantly when they walk or run.  They articulate their lower leg structure in order to run.  This is so in order for the birds to take air into their lungs.  Otherwise, their air-sac lung will collapse with dino legs which has both upper and lower leg motion.  This air-sac lung gives them enough lung capacity for flight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their leg structure is almost identical:
> 
> Comparison of T. rex and emu feet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A T-rex and an emu are not the same size.  The photo is deliberately misleading to show the similarity of the foot.  You're not looking at the upper leg structure or the femur.  They are quite different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Above is the skeleton of an emu.  Follow the lower leg up to the mid-leg and to the femur or upper leg above it.  The femur is right above the emu's knee.  It does not move as much and this allows for the emu's air-sac lungs to fill with air.  If it had an upper leg like the T-Rex, then it would not be able to breathe.  Its lungs would collapse.  Birds have this unique leg system.
> 
> Compare the emu's femur with the T-Rex one.  The T-Rex one has a very mobile femur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I even picked out a small T-Rex skeleton to show how the femur is different and its motion is way different from the emu.  There you go.  Another case solved by jb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, they aren't exact duplicates.  Why would anyone imagine they would be?  What you can't deny is that they are very similar, and the feet are almost identical.
> 
> Check these out:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is your avatar an exact match to you?  I can see you being a whiny child ready to be timed out.
> 
> What part of the bird would not be able to breathe do you not get?  As for the three fingers, the three fingers on birds aren't the same as the three fingers on theropods.  Also, you have a problem in how these theropods grew wings when they didn't have any before.
> 
> Finally, it's interesting you changed the T. Rex with an Archaeopteryx without much explanation how it got to be that way.  My reply to that is the fossil record shows that birds lived BEFORE the theropods and that they grew up in a parallel timeline.  This is the coup de grace for the birds from dinosaurs theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't even know where to begin dissecting that mass of logical contortions.
> 
> BTW, it says "FREE fingers," not "three fingers."
> 
> The fossil record does not show that birds lived before theropods.  The latter originated about 233 million years ago.  Archaeopteryx didn't appear until about 150 millions years ago.
> 
> What is your justification for claiming that "birds would not be able to breathe?"
> 
> "I have problem in how these theropods grew wings?"  How is that any different than explaining how animals grew legs or fingers or teeth or eyes or lungs or tongues?  Before birds appeared, theropod dinosaurs already had feathers and arms.  The step to wings wasn't that much of a leap.
Click to expand...

You are not going to have any luck with him. In order to understand evolution at all (much less accept it as fact), one has to know the earth is 4.54 billion years old. This freak thinks it is no more than 10,000 years old.


----------



## DOTR

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one can convince Fort Fun Indiana different.  To him birds from dinosaurs is a fact.  He thinks the re-engineering of beak and legs will eventually happen or else he has to go back to the drawing board to explain how birds became dinosaurs.
> 
> Creation science doesn't think birds macro-evolved from dinosaurs because their lung structure is different and that their leg structure (femur) does not move significantly when they walk or run.  They articulate their lower leg structure in order to run.  This is so in order for the birds to take air into their lungs.  Otherwise, their air-sac lung will collapse with dino legs which has both upper and lower leg motion.  This air-sac lung gives them enough lung capacity for flight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their leg structure is almost identical:
> 
> Comparison of T. rex and emu feet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A T-rex and an emu are not the same size.  The photo is deliberately misleading to show the similarity of the foot.  You're not looking at the upper leg structure or the femur.  They are quite different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Above is the skeleton of an emu.  Follow the lower leg up to the mid-leg and to the femur or upper leg above it.  The femur is right above the emu's knee.  It does not move as much and this allows for the emu's air-sac lungs to fill with air.  If it had an upper leg like the T-Rex, then it would not be able to breathe.  Its lungs would collapse.  Birds have this unique leg system.
> 
> Compare the emu's femur with the T-Rex one.  The T-Rex one has a very mobile femur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I even picked out a small T-Rex skeleton to show how the femur is different and its motion is way different from the emu.  There you go.  Another case solved by jb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, they aren't exact duplicates.  Why would anyone imagine they would be?  What you can't deny is that they are very similar, and the feet are almost identical.
> 
> Check these out:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is your avatar an exact match to you?  I can see you being a whiny child ready to be timed out.
> 
> What part of the bird would not be able to breathe do you not get?  As for the three fingers, the three fingers on birds aren't the same as the three fingers on theropods.  Also, you have a problem in how these theropods grew wings when they didn't have any before.
> 
> Finally, it's interesting you changed the T. Rex with an Archaeopteryx without much explanation how it got to be that way.  My reply to that is the fossil record shows that birds lived BEFORE the theropods and that they grew up in a parallel timeline.  This is the coup de grace for the birds from dinosaurs theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't even know where to begin dissecting that mass of logical contortions.
> 
> BTW, it says "FREE fingers," not "three fingers."
> 
> The fossil record does not show that birds lived before theropods.  The latter originated about 233 million years ago.  Archaeopteryx didn't appear until about 150 millions years ago.
> 
> What is your justification for claiming that "birds would not be able to breathe?"
> 
> "I have problem in how these theropods grew wings?"  How is that any different than explaining how animals grew legs or fingers or teeth or eyes or lungs or tongues?  Before birds appeared, theropod dinosaurs already had feathers and arms.  The step to wings wasn't that much of a leap.
Click to expand...


  Yes. Feathers were evolved for warmth and were later modified for flight. Feathered dinosaurs were not unusual.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one can convince Fort Fun Indiana different.  To him birds from dinosaurs is a fact.  He thinks the re-engineering of beak and legs will eventually happen or else he has to go back to the drawing board to explain how birds became dinosaurs.
> 
> Creation science doesn't think birds macro-evolved from dinosaurs because their lung structure is different and that their leg structure (femur) does not move significantly when they walk or run.  They articulate their lower leg structure in order to run.  This is so in order for the birds to take air into their lungs.  Otherwise, their air-sac lung will collapse with dino legs which has both upper and lower leg motion.  This air-sac lung gives them enough lung capacity for flight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their leg structure is almost identical:
> 
> Comparison of T. rex and emu feet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A T-rex and an emu are not the same size.  The photo is deliberately misleading to show the similarity of the foot.  You're not looking at the upper leg structure or the femur.  They are quite different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Above is the skeleton of an emu.  Follow the lower leg up to the mid-leg and to the femur or upper leg above it.  The femur is right above the emu's knee.  It does not move as much and this allows for the emu's air-sac lungs to fill with air.  If it had an upper leg like the T-Rex, then it would not be able to breathe.  Its lungs would collapse.  Birds have this unique leg system.
> 
> Compare the emu's femur with the T-Rex one.  The T-Rex one has a very mobile femur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I even picked out a small T-Rex skeleton to show how the femur is different and its motion is way different from the emu.  There you go.  Another case solved by jb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, they aren't exact duplicates.  Why would anyone imagine they would be?  What you can't deny is that they are very similar, and the feet are almost identical.
> 
> Check these out:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is your avatar an exact match to you?  I can see you being a whiny child ready to be timed out.
> 
> What part of the bird would not be able to breathe do you not get?  As for the three fingers, the three fingers on birds aren't the same as the three fingers on theropods.  Also, you have a problem in how these theropods grew wings when they didn't have any before.
> 
> Finally, it's interesting you changed the T. Rex with an Archaeopteryx without much explanation how it got to be that way.  My reply to that is the fossil record shows that birds lived BEFORE the theropods and that they grew up in a parallel timeline.  This is the coup de grace for the birds from dinosaurs theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't even know where to begin dissecting that mass of logical contortions.
> 
> BTW, it says "FREE fingers," not "three fingers."
> 
> The fossil record does not show that birds lived before theropods.  The latter originated about 233 million years ago.  Archaeopteryx didn't appear until about 150 millions years ago.
> 
> What is your justification for claiming that "birds would not be able to breathe?"
> 
> "I have problem in how these theropods grew wings?"  How is that any different than explaining how animals grew legs or fingers or teeth or eyes or lungs or tongues?  Before birds appeared, theropod dinosaurs already had feathers and arms.  The step to wings wasn't that much of a leap.
Click to expand...


Did you not know about the fingers?  See, I already got you right there.  The most primitive theropods had five fingers and later it became three, the theropods had #1, 2 and 3 where 1 = thumb.  The birds have three digits, but it's digits 2, 3 and 4.  This does not adequately explain the birds from dinosaurs theory.

And "free" fingers?  Are you looking for something for nothing?  Yeah, I'm sure you can get a finger from a theropod or an emu, but it will likely cost you something.






Birds lived before and with dinosaurs.  There were birds BEFORE archaeopteryx which probably wasn't a bird, but dinosaur.  All of this is swept under the rug by the birds from dinosaur theorists.  That is not science the way I learned it; It's fake science which you can't help subscribe to.  It's science myths.

Fossil of world's earliest modern bird could help us understand the extinction of dinosaurs

Finally, I already explained how birds would not be able to breathe, but will do so again.  If it had a femur like a theropod that moved, then it would be able to expand its air-sac lungs and the air-sac would collapse.  With a stable femur, the lungs are able to fully expand and also allow the bird to take flight.


----------



## james bond

DOTR said:


> I don’t know that much about bird evolution but I do know they descend from dinosaurs without a doubt. The thing is I can’t make head or tails of your complaint about lungs.



See my post #687 about finding an earlier bird than archaeopteryx.  These findings are not being widely publicized.  As for the femur or upper leg of the bird, the full explanation is here.

Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> This does not adequately explain the birds from dinosaurs theory.


Nobody would be dumb enough to say it does. The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence supports the fact that birds are dinosaurs. Only an ingorant moron would make such an embarraasingly stupid argument, as you just have.

To everyone else:

Bond plagiarized that talking point (as he always does) from this idiot blog, written by a non-scientist, Bible thumping moron:

Living dinosaurs or just birds? - creation.com

And this one:

Ostrich eggs break dino-to-bird theory - creation.com

You can find Bond's talking point virtually verbatim in these blogs. In fact, a of his talk points are plagiarized fro this website.  Of course, the uneducated morons authoring those blogs never actually bothered themselves with reading the follow up research. If anyone wants to see what actual scientists say about this (instead of ignorant, plagiarizing, bible thumping morons), then read this:

How Dinosaurs Handed Down Their Fingers to Birds


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> This does not adequately explain the birds from dinosaurs theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody would be dumb enough to say it does. The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence supports the fact that birds are dinosaurs. Only an ingorant moron would make such an embarraasingly stupid argument, as you just have.
> 
> To everyone else:
> 
> Bond plagiarized that talking point (as he always does) from this idiot blog, written by a non-scientist, Bible thumping moron:
> 
> Living dinosaurs or just birds? - creation.com
> 
> And this one:
> 
> Ostrich eggs break dino-to-bird theory - creation.com
> 
> You can find Bond's talking point virtually verbatim in these blogs. In fact, a of his talk points are plagiarized fro this website.  Of course, the uneducated morons authoring those blogs never actually bothered themselves with reading the follow up research. If anyone wants to see what actual scientists say about this (instead of ignorant, plagiarizing, bible thumping morons), then read this:
> 
> How Dinosaurs Handed Down Their Fingers to Birds
Click to expand...


It seems you are upset once again.  Another day of fail at re-engineering a chicken back into a dinosaur?  Next time you go to your dinosaur museum, you should look to see if they have chickens there.  If not, then go buy some dino nuggets and go to town.  

Or maybe it's the winter weather that's got you down?  It sprinkled and is 53 degrees right now where I am.  Cold.  B-R-R-R.  Can't wait for the warm spring weather to come.

I did not plagiarize, but linked my sources.  Unfortunately, none were from creation.com in which you seem to like thumping and plagiarizing.  Maybe you are a closet creation.com-ist.  That wouldn't be so bad.  Maybe it will help you get past fourth grade.

BTW did the creation.com links you listed help you?  If you did read them, they should start making you a smarter and better person instead of following the false science of evolution .


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> It seems you are upset once again.


Haha...it seems you forgot to check the scoreboard again. Shall we?:

Evolution is accepted fact. Charlatans like you are a global laughingstock among educated people. You have not a shred of published science on your side, nor are any of you frauds working on any.

But yeah..I'm the one that's upset, and you're the one declaring victory.

Stupidity on parade.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems you are upset once again.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...it seems you forgot to check the scoreboard again. Shall we?:
> 
> Evolution is accepted fact. Charlatans like you are a global laughingstock among educated people. You have not a shred of published science on your side, nor are any of you frauds working on any.
> 
> But yeah..I'm the one that's upset, and you're the one declaring victory.
> 
> Stupidity on parade.
Click to expand...


I didn't know you were in a parade every day.

I'm only trying to give comfort to one who seems terribly upset because their evolution was debunked.  Do you really care if birds didn't come from dinosaurs?  Birds are birds and dinosaurs are dinosaurs.  Otherwise, we would have made progress with the dino-chicken but they haven't.  They do make a mean chicken sandwich at Chick-Fil-A tho.  Skip the nuggets and try one of those to get over your upset.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I'm only trying to give comfort to one who seems terribly upset because their evolution was debunked.


Yes, I know. You like to declare victory on that.  It's one of the ways that even someone reading one of your posts for the first time knows you are a delusional freak.


----------



## DOTR

james bond said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t know that much about bird evolution but I do know they descend from dinosaurs without a doubt. The thing is I can’t make head or tails of your complaint about lungs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my post #687 about finding an earlier bird than archaeopteryx.  These findings are not being widely publicized.  As for the femur or upper leg of the bird, the full explanation is here.
> 
> Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links
Click to expand...


  I read that article. It is from 2009 and seems to be a singular example of a theory being pushed out to see if it stood up to review. Did it? I don’t think so. Haven’t seen anything else about it. 
  Regardless...I don’t know what you hope to gain from citing an article that claims dinosaurs and birds shared a common ancestor rather than direct descent. Because that is what it says.


----------



## DOTR

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their leg structure is almost identical:
> 
> Comparison of T. rex and emu feet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A T-rex and an emu are not the same size.  The photo is deliberately misleading to show the similarity of the foot.  You're not looking at the upper leg structure or the femur.  They are quite different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Above is the skeleton of an emu.  Follow the lower leg up to the mid-leg and to the femur or upper leg above it.  The femur is right above the emu's knee.  It does not move as much and this allows for the emu's air-sac lungs to fill with air.  If it had an upper leg like the T-Rex, then it would not be able to breathe.  Its lungs would collapse.  Birds have this unique leg system.
> 
> Compare the emu's femur with the T-Rex one.  The T-Rex one has a very mobile femur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I even picked out a small T-Rex skeleton to show how the femur is different and its motion is way different from the emu.  There you go.  Another case solved by jb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, they aren't exact duplicates.  Why would anyone imagine they would be?  What you can't deny is that they are very similar, and the feet are almost identical.
> 
> Check these out:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is your avatar an exact match to you?  I can see you being a whiny child ready to be timed out.
> 
> What part of the bird would not be able to breathe do you not get?  As for the three fingers, the three fingers on birds aren't the same as the three fingers on theropods.  Also, you have a problem in how these theropods grew wings when they didn't have any before.
> 
> Finally, it's interesting you changed the T. Rex with an Archaeopteryx without much explanation how it got to be that way.  My reply to that is the fossil record shows that birds lived BEFORE the theropods and that they grew up in a parallel timeline.  This is the coup de grace for the birds from dinosaurs theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't even know where to begin dissecting that mass of logical contortions.
> 
> BTW, it says "FREE fingers," not "three fingers."
> 
> The fossil record does not show that birds lived before theropods.  The latter originated about 233 million years ago.  Archaeopteryx didn't appear until about 150 millions years ago.
> 
> What is your justification for claiming that "birds would not be able to breathe?"
> 
> "I have problem in how these theropods grew wings?"  How is that any different than explaining how animals grew legs or fingers or teeth or eyes or lungs or tongues?  Before birds appeared, theropod dinosaurs already had feathers and arms.  The step to wings wasn't that much of a leap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you not know about the fingers?  See, I already got you right there.  The most primitive theropods had five fingers and later it became three, the theropods had #1, 2 and 3 where 1 = thumb.  The birds have three digits, but it's digits 2, 3 and 4.  This does not adequately explain the birds from dinosaurs theory.
> 
> And "free" fingers?  Are you looking for something for nothing?  Yeah, I'm sure you can get a finger from a theropod or an emu, but it will likely cost you something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Birds lived before and with dinosaurs.  There were birds BEFORE archaeopteryx which probably wasn't a bird, but dinosaur.  All of this is swept under the rug by the birds from dinosaur theorists.  That is not science the way I learned it; It's fake science which you can't help subscribe to.  It's science myths.
> 
> Fossil of world's earliest modern bird could help us understand the extinction of dinosaurs
> 
> Finally, I already explained how birds would not be able to breathe, but will do so again.  If it had a femur like a theropod that moved, then it would be able to expand its air-sac lungs and the air-sac would collapse.  With a stable femur, the lungs are able to fully expand and also allow the bird to take flight.
Click to expand...


Ok. Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Why do you keep sending articles explicitly saying birds evolved? Is it that you just think the theory is wrong and birds descended from non therapods.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm only trying to give comfort to one who seems terribly upset because their evolution was debunked.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. You like to declare victory on that.  It's one of the ways that even someone reading one of your posts for the first time knows you are a delusional freak.
Click to expand...


As I've repeated many times to you the atheist scientists have eliminated the creation scientists who disagree.  Even the secular scientists who disagree about birds from dinosaurs are disregarded.  This is because birds from dinosaurs is only the second example of macroevolution.  The first being humans from monkeys.  

Your fake science is based more on having the findings "fit" ToE and evolutionary thinking than having the theory based on factual findings.  The facts that do not fit are disregarded.  That's what makes your brand of science "fake."  You are a "fake" poster and why you get upset with me because I post the theory that is comprised of the facts.  

The only thing assumed is God which is based on "faith."  The rest is the science explained in the Bible which science has backed up.  That makes up the Bible theory.  

We do not have to teach God in public schools as the science in the Bible can be taught at public schools, i.e. real science.  Instead, the public school kids are taught atheist science or fake science.  Many people are brainwashed in evolutionary science this way and leads to brainwashed atheist scientists who can't figure things out correctly because of evolution.  

Don't you think Satan has done a good job on these scientists, some of the posters here and you?


----------



## james bond

DOTR said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t know that much about bird evolution but I do know they descend from dinosaurs without a doubt. The thing is I can’t make head or tails of your complaint about lungs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my post #687 about finding an earlier bird than archaeopteryx.  These findings are not being widely publicized.  As for the femur or upper leg of the bird, the full explanation is here.
> 
> Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read that article. It is from 2009 and seems to be a singular example of a theory being pushed out to see if it stood up to review. Did it? I don’t think so. Haven’t seen anything else about it.
> Regardless...I don’t know what you hope to gain from citing an article that claims dinosaurs and birds shared a common ancestor rather than direct descent. Because that is what it says.
Click to expand...


Wow, you missed a lot during that time.  I worked with the guy who drew Dilbert and he came out and said he questioned evolution.

Evolution started getting questioned around 2007 by the secular scientists and reached a high point around 2011.  This, in addition to the creation scientists who were complaining since the 1850s.  Much of their findings were disregarded.  These are facts that do not fit the ToE.  The birds to dinosaurs is a big deal because it is only the second example of macroevolution.  The first was humans from monkeys.  There isn't much disagreement on natural selection or microevolution.  Others were how did asexual single-cell creatures become sexual reproducing creatures?  How did amino acids form proteins outside the cell (they can't; this is physically impossible)?  No experimental evidence for abiogenesis, but people kept coming up claims of experimental evidence as well as some wild hypotheses.  How did the human eye evolve?  The hypotheses of singularity, cosmic inflation, dark matter and dark energy were others that formulated during this time.  I think the fine tuning parameters were found around this time, too, by the secular scientists studying the Big Bang (this included Stephen Hawking).  You missed a lot .

It goes to show that birds did not come from dinosaurs, so no macroevolution.  Macroevolution does not happen.  We had another thread arguing about humans from monkeys.  Same thing there.  No macroevolution.  Macroevolution does not happen.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> re is some contention that the Sphinx did go through the FLOOD of Noah and is much older than Egypt itself. Fascinating Facts About the Great Sphinx of Giza and How It Was Built
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in Egyptian records (the 5th Egyptian Dynasty) that indicates a global flood.
Click to expand...

The Flood likely happened before Egyptian dynasties if you took even a little time to view the clips.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noah’s pleasure cruise can be relegated to myth and legend
> 
> 
> 
> And you "know" that how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know there is no evidence of a global flood that occurred 6,000 years ago. I know that the fable proposing that someone named Noah built a boat and gathered two of every species of animal is just nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said what you want to BELIEVE. You present ZERO evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My post doesn't include the term "believe". Further, I'm not claiming a global flood ever occured, therefore, I'm not tasked with presenting evidence for a positive claim.
Click to expand...

 You claim  there was never a Global Flood, therefore you should prove your belief. You of course don't have to; however, you're not doing yourself a favor by playing naive or indifferent.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t know that much about bird evolution but I do know they descend from dinosaurs without a doubt. The thing is I can’t make head or tails of your complaint about lungs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my post #687 about finding an earlier bird than archaeopteryx.  These findings are not being widely publicized.  As for the femur or upper leg of the bird, the full explanation is here.
> 
> Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read that article. It is from 2009 and seems to be a singular example of a theory being pushed out to see if it stood up to review. Did it? I don’t think so. Haven’t seen anything else about it.
> Regardless...I don’t know what you hope to gain from citing an article that claims dinosaurs and birds shared a common ancestor rather than direct descent. Because that is what it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you missed a lot during that time.  I worked with the guy who drew Dilbert and he came out and said he questioned evolution.
> 
> Evolution started getting questioned around 2007 by the secular scientists and reached a high point around 2011.  This, in addition to the creation scientists who were complaining since the 1850s.  Much of their findings were disregarded.  These are facts that do not fit the ToE.  The birds to dinosaurs is a big deal because it is only the second example of macroevolution.  The first was humans from monkeys.  There isn't much disagreement on natural selection or microevolution.  Others were how did asexual single-cell creatures become sexual reproducing creatures?  How did amino acids form proteins outside the cell (they can't; this is physically impossible)?  No experimental evidence for abiogenesis, but people kept coming up claims of experimental evidence as well as some wild hypotheses.  How did the human eye evolve?  The hypotheses of singularity, cosmic inflation, dark matter and dark energy were others that formulated during this time.  I think the fine tuning parameters were found around this time, too, by the secular scientists studying the Big Bang (this included Stephen Hawking).  You missed a lot .
> 
> It goes to show that birds did not come from dinosaurs, so no macroevolution.  Macroevolution does not happen.  We had another thread arguing about humans from monkeys.  Same thing there.  No macroevolution.  Macroevolution does not happen.
Click to expand...

I find it difficult to believe that you know Scott Adams.  Furthermore, he has a dinosaur character in his comic.

I call bullshit.


----------



## bripat9643

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noah’s pleasure cruise can be relegated to myth and legend
> 
> 
> 
> And you "know" that how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know there is no evidence of a global flood that occurred 6,000 years ago. I know that the fable proposing that someone named Noah built a boat and gathered two of every species of animal is just nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said what you want to BELIEVE. You present ZERO evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My post doesn't include the term "believe". Further, I'm not claiming a global flood ever occured, therefore, I'm not tasked with presenting evidence for a positive claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim  there was never a Global Flood, therefore you should prove your belief. You of course don't have to; however, you're not doing yourself a favor by playing naive or indifferent.
Click to expand...

No, it's your job to prove there was a global flood.  Expressing skepticism at your fantasies does not obligate anyone to do anything.  She also doesn't have to prove that unicorns don't exist.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Sphinx and the Pyramids likely survived the FLOOD.
> 
> 
> 
> Made up nonsense.
Click to expand...

What you believe is made up and nonsense.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> You claim there was never a Global Flood, therefore you should prove your belief.


But thats a stupid request, as you have rigged the game. Nobody should waste a shred of time or effort presenting evidence to a fraud like you, because you just then say it's not evidence. You believe ridiculous shit contradicted by all of the evidence, like a 10,000 year old earth, and that all the fossils are out of order. You believe two of every species fit on the ark, when we couldn't even fit two of just the insect species  on the ark. How could anyone possibly prove anything to a deluded freak like that?


----------



## DOTR

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t know that much about bird evolution but I do know they descend from dinosaurs without a doubt. The thing is I can’t make head or tails of your complaint about lungs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my post #687 about finding an earlier bird than archaeopteryx.  These findings are not being widely publicized.  As for the femur or upper leg of the bird, the full explanation is here.
> 
> Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read that article. It is from 2009 and seems to be a singular example of a theory being pushed out to see if it stood up to review. Did it? I don’t think so. Haven’t seen anything else about it.
> Regardless...I don’t know what you hope to gain from citing an article that claims dinosaurs and birds shared a common ancestor rather than direct descent. Because that is what it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you missed a lot during that time.  I worked with the guy who drew Dilbert and he came out and said he questioned evolution.
> 
> Evolution started getting questioned around 2007 by the secular scientists and reached a high point around 2011.  This, in addition to the creation scientists who were complaining since the 1850s.  Much of their findings were disregarded.  These are facts that do not fit the ToE.  The birds to dinosaurs is a big deal because it is only the second example of macroevolution.  The first was humans from monkeys.  There isn't much disagreement on natural selection or microevolution.  Others were how did asexual single-cell creatures become sexual reproducing creatures?  How did amino acids form proteins outside the cell (they can't; this is physically impossible)?  No experimental evidence for abiogenesis, but people kept coming up claims of experimental evidence as well as some wild hypotheses.  How did the human eye evolve?  The hypotheses of singularity, cosmic inflation, dark matter and dark energy were others that formulated during this time.  I think the fine tuning parameters were found around this time, too, by the secular scientists studying the Big Bang (this included Stephen Hawking).  You missed a lot .
> 
> It goes to show that birds did not come from dinosaurs, so no macroevolution.  Macroevolution does not happen.  We had another thread arguing about humans from monkeys.  Same thing there.  No macroevolution.  Macroevolution does not happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I find it difficult to believe that you know Scott Adams.  Furthermore, he has a dinosaur character in his comic.
> 
> I call bullshit.
Click to expand...


  Do you follow his Twitter? His videos exposing Democrat tactics are brilliant.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DOTR said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t know that much about bird evolution but I do know they descend from dinosaurs without a doubt. The thing is I can’t make head or tails of your complaint about lungs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my post #687 about finding an earlier bird than archaeopteryx.  These findings are not being widely publicized.  As for the femur or upper leg of the bird, the full explanation is here.
> 
> Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read that article. It is from 2009 and seems to be a singular example of a theory being pushed out to see if it stood up to review. Did it? I don’t think so. Haven’t seen anything else about it.
> Regardless...I don’t know what you hope to gain from citing an article that claims dinosaurs and birds shared a common ancestor rather than direct descent. Because that is what it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you missed a lot during that time.  I worked with the guy who drew Dilbert and he came out and said he questioned evolution.
> 
> Evolution started getting questioned around 2007 by the secular scientists and reached a high point around 2011.  This, in addition to the creation scientists who were complaining since the 1850s.  Much of their findings were disregarded.  These are facts that do not fit the ToE.  The birds to dinosaurs is a big deal because it is only the second example of macroevolution.  The first was humans from monkeys.  There isn't much disagreement on natural selection or microevolution.  Others were how did asexual single-cell creatures become sexual reproducing creatures?  How did amino acids form proteins outside the cell (they can't; this is physically impossible)?  No experimental evidence for abiogenesis, but people kept coming up claims of experimental evidence as well as some wild hypotheses.  How did the human eye evolve?  The hypotheses of singularity, cosmic inflation, dark matter and dark energy were others that formulated during this time.  I think the fine tuning parameters were found around this time, too, by the secular scientists studying the Big Bang (this included Stephen Hawking).  You missed a lot .
> 
> It goes to show that birds did not come from dinosaurs, so no macroevolution.  Macroevolution does not happen.  We had another thread arguing about humans from monkeys.  Same thing there.  No macroevolution.  Macroevolution does not happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I find it difficult to believe that you know Scott Adams.  Furthermore, he has a dinosaur character in his comic.
> 
> I call bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you follow his Twitter? His videos exposing Democrat tactics are brilliant.
Click to expand...

And then he makea himself seem like a moron for glorifying some of the dumbest tweets we have ever seen. So he's a bit of an enigma.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> re is some contention that the Sphinx did go through the FLOOD of Noah and is much older than Egypt itself. Fascinating Facts About the Great Sphinx of Giza and How It Was Built
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in Egyptian records (the 5th Egyptian Dynasty) that indicates a global flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Flood likely happened before Egyptian dynasties if you took even a little time to view the clips.
Click to expand...


I’m afraid you’re wrong. If you review the historical record, you will not find any indication that the great dynasties of Egypt ever experienced civilizational loss to due a global flood. The Chinese have no record of their civilization being exterminated.

Has it occurred to you that learning world history by way of a silly YouTube video is probably a really bad idea?


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noah’s pleasure cruise can be relegated to myth and legend
> 
> 
> 
> And you "know" that how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know there is no evidence of a global flood that occurred 6,000 years ago. I know that the fable proposing that someone named Noah built a boat and gathered two of every species of animal is just nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said what you want to BELIEVE. You present ZERO evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My post doesn't include the term "believe". Further, I'm not claiming a global flood ever occured, therefore, I'm not tasked with presenting evidence for a positive claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim  there was never a Global Flood, therefore you should prove your belief. You of course don't have to; however, you're not doing yourself a favor by playing naive or indifferent.
Click to expand...


I’m not tasked with proving a negative. However I have proved there was no global flood. Prove I didn’t.

Thanks. 

See, this is the problem you have created. By demanding someone “prove it isn’t”, you are also put in the same position. 

It doesn’t fall to me to disprove every outrageous, unsupported claim made by someone who can’t be bothered to offer evidence for their outrageous claims. That’s ridiculous.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t know that much about bird evolution but I do know they descend from dinosaurs without a doubt. The thing is I can’t make head or tails of your complaint about lungs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my post #687 about finding an earlier bird than archaeopteryx.  These findings are not being widely publicized.  As for the femur or upper leg of the bird, the full explanation is here.
> 
> Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read that article. It is from 2009 and seems to be a singular example of a theory being pushed out to see if it stood up to review. Did it? I don’t think so. Haven’t seen anything else about it.
> Regardless...I don’t know what you hope to gain from citing an article that claims dinosaurs and birds shared a common ancestor rather than direct descent. Because that is what it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you missed a lot during that time.  I worked with the guy who drew Dilbert and he came out and said he questioned evolution.
> 
> Evolution started getting questioned around 2007 by the secular scientists and reached a high point around 2011.  This, in addition to the creation scientists who were complaining since the 1850s.  Much of their findings were disregarded.  These are facts that do not fit the ToE.  The birds to dinosaurs is a big deal because it is only the second example of macroevolution.  The first was humans from monkeys.  There isn't much disagreement on natural selection or microevolution.  Others were how did asexual single-cell creatures become sexual reproducing creatures?  How did amino acids form proteins outside the cell (they can't; this is physically impossible)?  No experimental evidence for abiogenesis, but people kept coming up claims of experimental evidence as well as some wild hypotheses.  How did the human eye evolve?  The hypotheses of singularity, cosmic inflation, dark matter and dark energy were others that formulated during this time.  I think the fine tuning parameters were found around this time, too, by the secular scientists studying the Big Bang (this included Stephen Hawking).  You missed a lot .
> 
> It goes to show that birds did not come from dinosaurs, so no macroevolution.  Macroevolution does not happen.  We had another thread arguing about humans from monkeys.  Same thing there.  No macroevolution.  Macroevolution does not happen.
Click to expand...


Using terms you don't understand does nothing to support ID'iot / creationism.  

There is the FACT that species change. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can change into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They give no reason for this fabricated limitation. They just can't accept "macroevolution", because it contradicts the "truth" of the bible. But there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species. The process (simply stated) involves the potential of many different types of individuals within a species, the birth of a great many individual organisms, and the deaths of those individuals whose characteristics are not as well suited to the total environment as other individuals of the same species. The deaths of these less well suited individuals allows for the increased reproduction of the better suited ones, and initiates a shift in the appearance and function of the species. Without limitation.

We should remember that Darwin was not operating in an intellectual vacuum regarding an old earth. The prevailing scientific viewpoint was that the earth was extremely old by the 1800s, which was at odds with a literal interpretation of the bibles. 

Regarding  Darwin's Origin of Species, it accomplished two very different things. 

First off, it demonstrated through a tour de force of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (keep in mind the difference between facts and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as comparative anatomy, selective breeding, biogeography and animal behavior, he laid out the factual case that descent with modification (evolution) had actually occurred. 

His evidence was so overwhelming that almost every major biologist of his day became convinced within the decade that evolution (the fact) was true. 

Secondly, it proposed a theory for explaining this fact; “Natural Selection.” Contrary to your false characterization of it as being “through coincidence,” Natural Selection abhors coincidence completely and instead proposes the objective criterion of “reproductive fitness” as the engine for driving biological change. 

What many people (especially creationists) do not understand is that during Darwin’s lifetime, the scientific community never accepted his theory, although they were convinced by his book that the fact of evolution was true. It was only long afterwards that his basic theory was combined with new discoveries in population genetics to convince biologists that Natural Selection does absolutely the best job of explaining the facts. 

Religious zealots continue to attack “Darwinism” because the fossil record is a direct contradiction to a literal Genesis account. In spite of the relatively rare circumstances under which fossilization occurs,  we better understand the physical processes that lead to fossilization much better than it was understood in the 19th century. What fundie zealots fail to understand, much less address, is that evolutionary biology does not explicitly require a perfect or even perfectly complete fossil record. In fact, No one should expect to see such a perfect record.

It is a misconception promoted relentlessly among the creation ministries that evolutionary theory is based primarily on the fossil record. The fossil record is just one component of evidence supporting evolution. Evidence also includes genetic data and the hierarchy of shared characteristics.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t know that much about bird evolution but I do know they descend from dinosaurs without a doubt. The thing is I can’t make head or tails of your complaint about lungs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my post #687 about finding an earlier bird than archaeopteryx.  These findings are not being widely publicized.  As for the femur or upper leg of the bird, the full explanation is here.
> 
> Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read that article. It is from 2009 and seems to be a singular example of a theory being pushed out to see if it stood up to review. Did it? I don’t think so. Haven’t seen anything else about it.
> Regardless...I don’t know what you hope to gain from citing an article that claims dinosaurs and birds shared a common ancestor rather than direct descent. Because that is what it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you missed a lot during that time.  I worked with the guy who drew Dilbert and he came out and said he questioned evolution.
> 
> Evolution started getting questioned around 2007 by the secular scientists and reached a high point around 2011.  This, in addition to the creation scientists who were complaining since the 1850s.  Much of their findings were disregarded.  These are facts that do not fit the ToE.  The birds to dinosaurs is a big deal because it is only the second example of macroevolution.  The first was humans from monkeys.  There isn't much disagreement on natural selection or microevolution.  Others were how did asexual single-cell creatures become sexual reproducing creatures?  How did amino acids form proteins outside the cell (they can't; this is physically impossible)?  No experimental evidence for abiogenesis, but people kept coming up claims of experimental evidence as well as some wild hypotheses.  How did the human eye evolve?  The hypotheses of singularity, cosmic inflation, dark matter and dark energy were others that formulated during this time.  I think the fine tuning parameters were found around this time, too, by the secular scientists studying the Big Bang (this included Stephen Hawking).  You missed a lot .
> 
> It goes to show that birds did not come from dinosaurs, so no macroevolution.  Macroevolution does not happen.  We had another thread arguing about humans from monkeys.  Same thing there.  No macroevolution.  Macroevolution does not happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I find it difficult to believe that you know Scott Adams.  Furthermore, he has a dinosaur character in his comic.
> 
> I call bullshit.
Click to expand...


Haha.  You don't believe anything I post.  We worked at Pac Bell/SBC (AT&T now) and I don't think his dinos turned into birds nor chickens.  However, he did have them alive at the same time as humans wink-wink.  Do you remember how he called bullshit on evolution ?  This came a few years later.  He may have quit the company by then.

Fossils – Still Bullshit


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim there was never a Global Flood, therefore you should prove your belief.
> 
> 
> 
> But thats a stupid request, as you have rigged the game. Nobody should waste a shred of time or effort presenting evidence to a fraud like you, because you just then say it's not evidence. You believe ridiculous shit contradicted by all of the evidence, like a 10,000 year old earth, and that all the fossils are out of order. You believe two of every species fit on the ark, when we couldn't even fit two of just the insect species  on the ark. How could anyone possibly prove anything to a deluded freak like that?
Click to expand...

You simply don't wish to believe there is a GOD. You are the fraud because the only science you will accept is that which seems to fulfill your desire of a universe without GOD or any reason for existing. Insects are not that big and certainly could have lived on or with the animals filling the ark. You believe that 4 letter words make you appear a worldly adult. I believe you should have your mouth washed out with ivory soap and be sent to bed without supper.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> re is some contention that the Sphinx did go through the FLOOD of Noah and is much older than Egypt itself. Fascinating Facts About the Great Sphinx of Giza and How It Was Built
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in Egyptian records (the 5th Egyptian Dynasty) that indicates a global flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Flood likely happened before Egyptian dynasties if you took even a little time to view the clips.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’m afraid you’re wrong. If you review the historical record, you will not find any indication that the great dynasties of Egypt ever experienced civilizational loss to due a global flood. The Chinese have no record of their civilization being exterminated.
> 
> Has it occurred to you that learning world history by way of a silly YouTube video is probably a really bad idea?
Click to expand...

Again, since the FLOOD happened before Egyptian civilization and the Chinese civilization, such would not experience "civilizational" loss. The Chinese didn't even exist as a race until after the Tower of Babel, which occurred *after *the FLOOD.


----------



## LittleNipper

bripat9643 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you "know" that how?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know there is no evidence of a global flood that occurred 6,000 years ago. I know that the fable proposing that someone named Noah built a boat and gathered two of every species of animal is just nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said what you want to BELIEVE. You present ZERO evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My post doesn't include the term "believe". Further, I'm not claiming a global flood ever occured, therefore, I'm not tasked with presenting evidence for a positive claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim  there was never a Global Flood, therefore you should prove your belief. You of course don't have to; however, you're not doing yourself a favor by playing naive or indifferent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's your job to prove there was a global flood.  Expressing skepticism at your fantasies does not obligate anyone to do anything.  She also doesn't have to prove that unicorns don't exist.
Click to expand...

No, it is your job to seek after GOD and not sit on you duff giving the finger and expecting everything to be done for you.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t know that much about bird evolution but I do know they descend from dinosaurs without a doubt. The thing is I can’t make head or tails of your complaint about lungs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my post #687 about finding an earlier bird than archaeopteryx.  These findings are not being widely publicized.  As for the femur or upper leg of the bird, the full explanation is here.
> 
> Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read that article. It is from 2009 and seems to be a singular example of a theory being pushed out to see if it stood up to review. Did it? I don’t think so. Haven’t seen anything else about it.
> Regardless...I don’t know what you hope to gain from citing an article that claims dinosaurs and birds shared a common ancestor rather than direct descent. Because that is what it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you missed a lot during that time.  I worked with the guy who drew Dilbert and he came out and said he questioned evolution.
> 
> Evolution started getting questioned around 2007 by the secular scientists and reached a high point around 2011.  This, in addition to the creation scientists who were complaining since the 1850s.  Much of their findings were disregarded.  These are facts that do not fit the ToE.  The birds to dinosaurs is a big deal because it is only the second example of macroevolution.  The first was humans from monkeys.  There isn't much disagreement on natural selection or microevolution.  Others were how did asexual single-cell creatures become sexual reproducing creatures?  How did amino acids form proteins outside the cell (they can't; this is physically impossible)?  No experimental evidence for abiogenesis, but people kept coming up claims of experimental evidence as well as some wild hypotheses.  How did the human eye evolve?  The hypotheses of singularity, cosmic inflation, dark matter and dark energy were others that formulated during this time.  I think the fine tuning parameters were found around this time, too, by the secular scientists studying the Big Bang (this included Stephen Hawking).  You missed a lot .
> 
> It goes to show that birds did not come from dinosaurs, so no macroevolution.  Macroevolution does not happen.  We had another thread arguing about humans from monkeys.  Same thing there.  No macroevolution.  Macroevolution does not happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using terms you don't understand does nothing to support ID'iot / creationism.
> 
> There is the FACT that species change. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can change into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They give no reason for this fabricated limitation. They just can't accept "macroevolution", because it contradicts the "truth" of the bible. But there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species. The process (simply stated) involves the potential of many different types of individuals within a species, the birth of a great many individual organisms, and the deaths of those individuals whose characteristics are not as well suited to the total environment as other individuals of the same species. The deaths of these less well suited individuals allows for the increased reproduction of the better suited ones, and initiates a shift in the appearance and function of the species. Without limitation.
> 
> We should remember that Darwin was not operating in an intellectual vacuum regarding an old earth. The prevailing scientific viewpoint was that the earth was extremely old by the 1800s, which was at odds with a literal interpretation of the bibles.
> 
> Regarding  Darwin's Origin of Species, it accomplished two very different things.
> 
> First off, it demonstrated through a tour de force of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (keep in mind the difference between facts and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as comparative anatomy, selective breeding, biogeography and animal behavior, he laid out the factual case that descent with modification (evolution) had actually occurred.
> 
> His evidence was so overwhelming that almost every major biologist of his day became convinced within the decade that evolution (the fact) was true.
> 
> Secondly, it proposed a theory for explaining this fact; “Natural Selection.” Contrary to your false characterization of it as being “through coincidence,” Natural Selection abhors coincidence completely and instead proposes the objective criterion of “reproductive fitness” as the engine for driving biological change.
> 
> What many people (especially creationists) do not understand is that during Darwin’s lifetime, the scientific community never accepted his theory, although they were convinced by his book that the fact of evolution was true. It was only long afterwards that his basic theory was combined with new discoveries in population genetics to convince biologists that Natural Selection does absolutely the best job of explaining the facts.
> 
> Religious zealots continue to attack “Darwinism” because the fossil record is a direct contradiction to a literal Genesis account. In spite of the relatively rare circumstances under which fossilization occurs,  we better understand the physical processes that lead to fossilization much better than it was understood in the 19th century. What fundie zealots fail to understand, much less address, is that evolutionary biology does not explicitly require a perfect or even perfectly complete fossil record. In fact, No one should expect to see such a perfect record.
> 
> It is a misconception promoted relentlessly among the creation ministries that evolutionary theory is based primarily on the fossil record. The fossil record is just one component of evidence supporting evolution. Evidence also includes genetic data and the hierarchy of shared characteristics.
Click to expand...

Wrong, John Hutton came up with the theory of Uniformatarianism.   Hutton himself was a deist, who believed that the world had been created for humans’ eventual emergence; however, he did not believe that god interfered in the world, so that the miraculous-seeming events of Catastrophism seemed impossible to him.: James Hutton: The Founder of Modern Geology | AMNH


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> re is some contention that the Sphinx did go through the FLOOD of Noah and is much older than Egypt itself. Fascinating Facts About the Great Sphinx of Giza and How It Was Built
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in Egyptian records (the 5th Egyptian Dynasty) that indicates a global flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Flood likely happened before Egyptian dynasties if you took even a little time to view the clips.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’m afraid you’re wrong. If you review the historical record, you will not find any indication that the great dynasties of Egypt ever experienced civilizational loss to due a global flood. The Chinese have no record of their civilization being exterminated.
> 
> Has it occurred to you that learning world history by way of a silly YouTube video is probably a really bad idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, since the FLOOD happened before Egyptian civilization and the Chinese civilization, such would not experience "civilizational" loss. The Chinese didn't even exist as a race until after the Tower of Babel, which occurred *after *the FLOOD.
Click to expand...


The 5th Egyptian Dynasty existed within the approximate timeline of the Noah fable. Chinese civilization existed within the same time frame. 

Yet, there is nothing in either Egyptian or Chinese history that indicates the loss of those entire civilizations. 

How do you explain that?


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t know that much about bird evolution but I do know they descend from dinosaurs without a doubt. The thing is I can’t make head or tails of your complaint about lungs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my post #687 about finding an earlier bird than archaeopteryx.  These findings are not being widely publicized.  As for the femur or upper leg of the bird, the full explanation is here.
> 
> Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read that article. It is from 2009 and seems to be a singular example of a theory being pushed out to see if it stood up to review. Did it? I don’t think so. Haven’t seen anything else about it.
> Regardless...I don’t know what you hope to gain from citing an article that claims dinosaurs and birds shared a common ancestor rather than direct descent. Because that is what it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you missed a lot during that time.  I worked with the guy who drew Dilbert and he came out and said he questioned evolution.
> 
> Evolution started getting questioned around 2007 by the secular scientists and reached a high point around 2011.  This, in addition to the creation scientists who were complaining since the 1850s.  Much of their findings were disregarded.  These are facts that do not fit the ToE.  The birds to dinosaurs is a big deal because it is only the second example of macroevolution.  The first was humans from monkeys.  There isn't much disagreement on natural selection or microevolution.  Others were how did asexual single-cell creatures become sexual reproducing creatures?  How did amino acids form proteins outside the cell (they can't; this is physically impossible)?  No experimental evidence for abiogenesis, but people kept coming up claims of experimental evidence as well as some wild hypotheses.  How did the human eye evolve?  The hypotheses of singularity, cosmic inflation, dark matter and dark energy were others that formulated during this time.  I think the fine tuning parameters were found around this time, too, by the secular scientists studying the Big Bang (this included Stephen Hawking).  You missed a lot .
> 
> It goes to show that birds did not come from dinosaurs, so no macroevolution.  Macroevolution does not happen.  We had another thread arguing about humans from monkeys.  Same thing there.  No macroevolution.  Macroevolution does not happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using terms you don't understand does nothing to support ID'iot / creationism.
> 
> There is the FACT that species change. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can change into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They give no reason for this fabricated limitation. They just can't accept "macroevolution", because it contradicts the "truth" of the bible. But there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species. The process (simply stated) involves the potential of many different types of individuals within a species, the birth of a great many individual organisms, and the deaths of those individuals whose characteristics are not as well suited to the total environment as other individuals of the same species. The deaths of these less well suited individuals allows for the increased reproduction of the better suited ones, and initiates a shift in the appearance and function of the species. Without limitation.
> 
> We should remember that Darwin was not operating in an intellectual vacuum regarding an old earth. The prevailing scientific viewpoint was that the earth was extremely old by the 1800s, which was at odds with a literal interpretation of the bibles.
> 
> Regarding  Darwin's Origin of Species, it accomplished two very different things.
> 
> First off, it demonstrated through a tour de force of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (keep in mind the difference between facts and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as comparative anatomy, selective breeding, biogeography and animal behavior, he laid out the factual case that descent with modification (evolution) had actually occurred.
> 
> His evidence was so overwhelming that almost every major biologist of his day became convinced within the decade that evolution (the fact) was true.
> 
> Secondly, it proposed a theory for explaining this fact; “Natural Selection.” Contrary to your false characterization of it as being “through coincidence,” Natural Selection abhors coincidence completely and instead proposes the objective criterion of “reproductive fitness” as the engine for driving biological change.
> 
> What many people (especially creationists) do not understand is that during Darwin’s lifetime, the scientific community never accepted his theory, although they were convinced by his book that the fact of evolution was true. It was only long afterwards that his basic theory was combined with new discoveries in population genetics to convince biologists that Natural Selection does absolutely the best job of explaining the facts.
> 
> Religious zealots continue to attack “Darwinism” because the fossil record is a direct contradiction to a literal Genesis account. In spite of the relatively rare circumstances under which fossilization occurs,  we better understand the physical processes that lead to fossilization much better than it was understood in the 19th century. What fundie zealots fail to understand, much less address, is that evolutionary biology does not explicitly require a perfect or even perfectly complete fossil record. In fact, No one should expect to see such a perfect record.
> 
> It is a misconception promoted relentlessly among the creation ministries that evolutionary theory is based primarily on the fossil record. The fossil record is just one component of evidence supporting evolution. Evidence also includes genetic data and the hierarchy of shared characteristics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, John Hutton came up with the theory of Uniformatarianism.   Hutton himself was a deist, who believed that the world had been created for humans’ eventual emergence; however, he did not believe that god interfered in the world, so that the miraculous-seeming events of Catastrophism seemed impossible to him.: James Hutton: The Founder of Modern Geology | AMNH
Click to expand...


And that means what?


----------



## bripat9643

LittleNipper said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there is no evidence of a global flood that occurred 6,000 years ago. I know that the fable proposing that someone named Noah built a boat and gathered two of every species of animal is just nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> You said what you want to BELIEVE. You present ZERO evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My post doesn't include the term "believe". Further, I'm not claiming a global flood ever occured, therefore, I'm not tasked with presenting evidence for a positive claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim  there was never a Global Flood, therefore you should prove your belief. You of course don't have to; however, you're not doing yourself a favor by playing naive or indifferent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's your job to prove there was a global flood.  Expressing skepticism at your fantasies does not obligate anyone to do anything.  She also doesn't have to prove that unicorns don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is your job to seek after GOD and not sit on you duff giving the finger and expecting everything to be done for you.
Click to expand...

Wrong.  I'm not required to "seek after" fairy tales.  Rational mature adults don't do such things.


----------



## abu afak

LittleNipper said:


> *Again, since the FLOOD happened before Egyptian civilization and the Chinese civilization, such would not experience "civilizational" loss.
> The Chinese didn't even exist as a race until after the Tower of Babel, which occurred after the FLOOD.*


*LOLink?*
`


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim there was never a Global Flood, therefore you should prove your belief.
> 
> 
> 
> But thats a stupid request, as you have rigged the game. Nobody should waste a shred of time or effort presenting evidence to a fraud like you, because you just then say it's not evidence. You believe ridiculous shit contradicted by all of the evidence, like a 10,000 year old earth, and that all the fossils are out of order. You believe two of every species fit on the ark, when we couldn't even fit two of just the insect species  on the ark. How could anyone possibly prove anything to a deluded freak like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't wish to believe there is a GOD. You are the fraud because the only science you will accept is that which seems to fulfill your desire of a universe without GOD or any reason for existing. Insects are not that big and certainly could have lived on or with the animals filling the ark. You believe that 4 letter words make you appear a worldly adult. I believe you should have your mouth washed out with ivory soap and be sent to bed without supper.
Click to expand...


You simply don’t wish to believe in all the gods competing with your gods.

That’s ummm, you know, _racist_™️


----------



## 007

zaangalewa said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The fountains of the deep."
> 
> The Great Flood occurred, not only because of the rain, ite also says the earth "opened up" and released the "fountains of the deep."
> 
> Another huge OCEAN deep within gave up its water for a time.
> 
> Did Geologists Discover ‘Fountains of the Deep’ From Genesis Flood?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Might be, may be, could be"_... this is quack speculation.
> 
> Even as a Christian, I don't believe there's a HIDDEN OCEAN under the earth's mantel, and I don't believe the earth was created in 6 days and is only 6,000 years old either. You have to completely suspend reality to be a YEC cultist and believe a lot of these quack science theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Christian believes the Earth is 6000 years old  - except he is an idiot,
> 
> An let me now correct you: The world was created from god in 6 days. That's different. Then followed the 7th day, where god rested and saw everything what he made was always good. What's not so clear today is whether we are now still in the 7th day of creation or whether the 8th day of creation yet had begun. We will see what Jesus will tell us, when he will come back from the place, where he will prepare (¿where he did prepare?) a home for us and all our friends.
Click to expand...

I assure you, many, MANY Christians believe the earth, AND HEAVENS, are only six thousand years old. In fact, most all information you'll find from Christian websites will have their experts and videos purporting exactly that, and how they come to their conclusion. They're called YEC, "young earth creationists," and yes, I agree you have to be an idiot to believe the earth and heavens is only 6,000 years old.

But I think it's equally stupid to believe that God created the earth, AND HEAVENS, in ONLY six days, and rested on the 7th. You have to suspend all logically thought and disbelieve all modern science to believe either, and that's just moronic. I do believe in creation of LIFE, on THIS PLANET, by GOD, but I have my doubts as to whether or not God CREATED the UNIVERSE. I think much of Genesis is a fairy tale, and if God wants to smite me and send me to hell for not believing some things, well, then I guess I'm screwed.


----------



## DOTR

bripat9643 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said what you want to BELIEVE. You present ZERO evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> My post doesn't include the term "believe". Further, I'm not claiming a global flood ever occured, therefore, I'm not tasked with presenting evidence for a positive claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim  there was never a Global Flood, therefore you should prove your belief. You of course don't have to; however, you're not doing yourself a favor by playing naive or indifferent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's your job to prove there was a global flood.  Expressing skepticism at your fantasies does not obligate anyone to do anything.  She also doesn't have to prove that unicorns don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is your job to seek after GOD and not sit on you duff giving the finger and expecting everything to be done for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  I'm not required to "seek after" fairy tales.  Rational mature adults don't do such things.
Click to expand...


  I disagree. The greatest thinkers in history knew that materialism does not hold all the answers.


----------



## bripat9643

DOTR said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> My post doesn't include the term "believe". Further, I'm not claiming a global flood ever occured, therefore, I'm not tasked with presenting evidence for a positive claim.
> 
> 
> 
> You claim  there was never a Global Flood, therefore you should prove your belief. You of course don't have to; however, you're not doing yourself a favor by playing naive or indifferent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's your job to prove there was a global flood.  Expressing skepticism at your fantasies does not obligate anyone to do anything.  She also doesn't have to prove that unicorns don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is your job to seek after GOD and not sit on you duff giving the finger and expecting everything to be done for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  I'm not required to "seek after" fairy tales.  Rational mature adults don't do such things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree. The greatest thinkers in history knew that materialism does not hold all the answers.
Click to expand...

That doesn't require me to believe it.  The greatest thinkers in history were all wrong or ignorant about a lot of things.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> You simply don't wish to believe there is a GOD.


That has nothing to do with anything. One can still believe in God and not be so stupid as to reject all the evidence we have ever collected. And plenty of people do. So what would you say to them? Looks like you've run out of talking points.


----------



## zaangalewa

007 said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The fountains of the deep."
> 
> The Great Flood occurred, not only because of the rain, ite also says the earth "opened up" and released the "fountains of the deep."
> 
> Another huge OCEAN deep within gave up its water for a time.
> 
> Did Geologists Discover ‘Fountains of the Deep’ From Genesis Flood?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Might be, may be, could be"_... this is quack speculation.
> 
> Even as a Christian, I don't believe there's a HIDDEN OCEAN under the earth's mantel, and I don't believe the earth was created in 6 days and is only 6,000 years old either. You have to completely suspend reality to be a YEC cultist and believe a lot of these quack science theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Christian believes the Earth is 6000 years old  - except he is an idiot,
> 
> An let me now correct you: The world was created from god in 6 days. That's different. Then followed the 7th day, where god rested and saw everything what he made was always good. What's not so clear today is whether we are now still in the 7th day of creation or whether the 8th day of creation yet had begun. We will see what Jesus will tell us, when he will come back from the place, where he will prepare (¿where he did prepare?) a home for us and all our friends.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I assure you, many, MANY Christians believe the earth, AND HEAVENS, are only six thousand years old.
Click to expand...


Not everyone is able to live on planet Earth - some live also on the planet USA.



> In fact, most all information you'll find from Christian websites will have their experts and videos purporting exactly that,



 Experts in what? In building an arch?



> and how they come to their conclusion. They're called YEC, "young earth creationists," and yes, I agree you have to be an idiot to believe the earth and heavens is only 6,000 years old.



To believe in Darwinism is much more stupid - and not only stupid but damned dangerous too. Most people who argue in the name of "evolution" do not really know what they are speaking about. Every second sentence is nonsense. Sometimes I think Saint Francis had more fundamental ideas about evolution than all modern evolutionists together have today.



> But I think it's equally stupid to believe that God created the earth, AND HEAVENS, in ONLY six days, and rested on the 7th.



Get the rhythm to make a break every 7th day  - we call this system of time "week" - then you will see it is not stupid to believe this. Specially it is not stupid if others follow the same rhythm of celebrating love, lífe and god.



> You have to suspend all logically thought and disbelieve all modern science to believe either, and that's just moronic. I do believe in creation of LIFE, on THIS PLANET, by GOD,



I believe god creates everything out of nothing. I believe it's not over yet.



> but I have my doubts as to whether or not God CREATED the UNIVERSE.



Once I thought about what will happen when god closes his eyes and will not "watch" anything in this universe any longer. I had the thought it will disappear - but not only out of space - also out of time so it was never, is not and will never be. God is not our "big brother" in this imagination - he's our life, our existence. He's essential.



> I think much of Genesis is a fairy tale,



fairy ... comes from the germanic word "Fee". Very similiar to the word "angel".



> and if God wants to smite me and send me to hell for not believing some things, well, then I guess I'm screwed.



It's not easy to be an enemy of god - indeed it's impossible. So why not just simple to trust in god? You are not forced to kidnapp an old lady to help her to cross a street without danger. Ask the old lady. Perhaps she likes not to cross the road but loves coffee and a piece of cake.


----------



## zaangalewa

abu afak

Still nothing to say what has a half-life period of more than the part of a moment without words? Your are using by the way the typical way of the propaganda strategy of Nazis or Commies in your way not to discuss but to color everything with negative emotions, shadow of the darkness.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Sometimes I think Saint Francis had more fundamental ideas about evolution than all modern evolutionists together have today.


Well, that makes you insane, then. And, given the stuff you say about evolution, I have to seriously doubt that you know much about it at all, much less enough to make determinations on the work of modern scientists.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Still nothing to say what has a half-life period of more than the part of a moment without words?


Ah yes,the classic charlatan tactic: attempt to beguile and confuse people with utter nonsense.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still nothing to say what has a half-life period of more than the part of a moment without words?
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes,the classic charlatan tactic: attempt to beguile and confuse people with utter nonsense.
Click to expand...


What I say is not nonsense. You do not [like to]  to understand what I say, because my world is not a part of the world of your thoughts. Your problem is very old, when I take a look at the murderer of Archimḗdēs ho Syrakoúsios. Because you do not [like to] understand my circles (or the circles of anyone else) you try to eliminate the person with verbal swords. But nor darkness nor fear will bring me to any acceptance of dark methods of mind manipulations. No one has to agree with anything what I say - everyone is free - but if you like to argue in a public forum then try to argue. Just to play with dirt and never to look a little higher creates not any plausibility for nothing. You should not think that everyone is an idiot and so idiots have to rule the world. Idiots rule the world because they make everyone tired to try to speak with them any longer, that's all.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes I think Saint Francis had more fundamental ideas about evolution than all modern evolutionists together have today.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that makes you insane, then. And, given the stuff you say about evolution, I have to seriously doubt that you know much about it at all, much less enough to make determinations on the work of modern scientists.
Click to expand...


I guess I know more about the theory of evolution including evolutionary epistemology - and also about biology and medicine - than you ever had heard about in your whole life. One of the most stupid discussions I've ever heard is for examPle the discussion "creation vs evolution" in the English speaking world. The whole discussion is full of nonsense about evolution and religion. Evolution for example is not able to evolve creation, but creation is able to create evolution. This expressions are asymetric. They speak not about the same things. And besides of the nonsense, which so called "creationists" often create, also lots of "evolutionist" speak about evolution in cases where never anything evolved or an "evolution" followed only human imaginations, plans and deeds. I would say when I read today the word "evolution" in any publication then the use of this  word is wrong in about 19 of 20 cases.

By the way: Every Christian believes god created the world - but a Christian normally is not a creationists, because it is not an ideology to believe this. And a Christian, who studies something what has to do with evolution, is also not an "evolutionist", because this is only an ideology too. "Evolution" on its own is just simple a natural law.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> I guess I know more about the theory of evolution including evolutionary epistemology - and also about biology and medicine - than you ever had heard about in your whole life.


You clearly do not. And your implication that you know more than people who dedicate their lives to it is absurd, and you deserve to be mocked for it.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I know more about the theory of evolution including evolutionary epistemology - and also about biology and medicine - than you ever had heard about in your whole life.
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly do not.
Click to expand...


You do not know from me what I never spoke about in English.



> and your implication that you know more than people who dedicate their lives to it is absurd, and you deserve to be mocked for it.



You ¿dedicated? your life to what exactly? To some ideas about a darwinistic ideology and materialistic philosophy? What about other ideological and/or philosophical concepts?  "Evolution" is by the way something what hunter-gatherers and farmers and shepherds are using since long thousands of years.


----------



## james bond

Puhleeze, God did not create evolution.  God created his creation in six days and rested on the seventh.  This was the predominant theory before the 1850s until the atheist James Hutton and his pupil Charles Darwin started applying anti-creation uniformitarianism and ToE.  Later, creation and God were systematically eliminated from science to what we have today as fake science.  It's no wonder today's scientists are usually wrong.  We can debunk uniformitarianism with how Pangaea the supercontinent became seven continents and the formation of the Himalayas.

My hypothesis is Satan created evolution at the Tower of Babel and handed it down to King Nimrod.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Puhleeze, God did not create evolution.  God created his creation in six days and rested on the seventh.  This was the predominant theory before the 1850s until the atheist James Hutton and his pupil Charles Darwin started applying anti-creation uniformitarianism and ToE.  Later, creation and God were systematically eliminated from science to what we have today as fake science.  It's no wonder today's scientists are usually wrong.  We can debunk uniformitarianism with how Pangaea the supercontinent became seven continents and the formation of the Himalayas.
> 
> My hypothesis is Satan created evolution at the Tower of Babel and handed it down to King Nimrod.



Do you realize that you utterly destroy your own argument for ID'iot / creationist magic when you're reduced to cartoons as a counter to peer reviewed science?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> You ¿dedicated? your life to what exactly?


Irrelevant. I am talking of the biologists from many sub fields of biology who research evolution..


----------



## james bond

*It appears the creation scientists are right again.  Much of science supports the existence and work of God.  "“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.” Psalm 19:1*

*Gregor Mendel's discovery of natural selection spoke against Charles Darwin's theory of evolution*
"Gregor Mendel crossed various races of edible peas.  When a red-flowered plant was crossed with a white-flowered one, the offspring were found to be red-flowered.  Mendel then crossed these red offspring with each other and found that they produced offspring of their own in the ratio of 3 reds : 1 white.

We can best understand this by considering the genes involved in these crosses.  A gene can be considered as a unit which determines a particular characteristic, in this case flower colour.  It can exist in one of two forms, one giving rise to red flowers and the other to white.  The offspring of the original cross of red-flowered plants with white were all red-flowered, although they did in fact possess both a gene for red flowers and a gene for white.

Mendel concluded that the red gene must be dominant to the white, so that any plant that possessed them both would be red.  When these red plants were bred with each other, it was possible for two white genes to come together and so give offspring that were white.  The chance that the offspring would receive at least one red gene is 3:1.

Mendel found that when he interbred the red-flowered plants obtained as the offspring of his original cross, he got white flowers produced as well as red.  Darwin's theory rested on the assumption that in such a case as this the white characteristic was a new character acquired by the young plants which their parents had not possessed.  After all, a race has got to acquire new characteristics if it is ever going to evolve.

Mendel showed that the characteristic had not been acquired.  It had been present all the time in the parents' generation, though masked by a more dominant gene.  If one applies statistics to Mendel's ideas one can show quite easily that the genes in the new generation exist in exactly the same frequency as they did in the parents' generation.  It might be possible to lose some genes by killing off those individuals that possessed them but it would never be possible to acquire new ones.

*Darwin's theory began to flounder when these facts came to light.* * It was saved from total eclipse by the emergence of a theory which said that genes could sometimes change to completely new forms. This radical change in the gene is known as a mutation.*

"This is the form in which Darwin's theory is believed today.  It is assumed that mutations can change the gene to a new form. The process of natural selection is said to operate by selecting out those new genes which are favourable to the organism and discarding others. ...

Darwin's ToE "The modern theory of evolution thus stands or falls on this question of mutation.  If mutations do not occur, it is impossible for evolution to progress.  We must therefore examine the question of mutations and see if they actually occur as evolutionists claim.

"Firstly, it is certain that mutations can and do occur.  Secondly, it is just as certain that any major change in a gene is always a change for the worse.  This is what we would expect.  Genes are complicated and wonderfully designed and any major change in them will lead to their functioning less efficiently.

*"This is admitted by geneticists after seventy years of intensive experimentation.  During that time they have induced thousands of mutations in various organisms, but have not been able to come up with one convincing case of a mutation that was clearly beneficial to the organism.  In fact, it is now generally admitted that mutations under natural conditions are so rare, and so often harmful, that when they do occur they are not of any significance to the genetics of a population of creatures.  Any individuals who do receive the mutations will tend to die out and so the genetic structure of the population as a whole will remain unaffected.*


*Mutations are far from being able to produce new, vigorous genes which would enable a race of organisms to evolve.  They are extremely rare and detrimental events which do not alter the genetic structure of the race as a whole - except in some cases to weaken it.  This even applies to so-called favourable mutations such as the sickle cell anaemia trait and the drug-resistance of bacteria, but space will not allow discussion of these.  But even if mutations were to occur in the way that evolutionists claim, evolution would still be impossible."*

*Bottom line:  Mutations do not add new information, so evolution does not happen.  This means no humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs.*

Science That Backs Up The Bible and Casts Doubt on Evolution?

Darwin VS Mendel: Scientist showdown


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ¿dedicated? your life to what exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Everything is irrelevant for you, what you do not understand. The problem: Within the universe the most little cause can have a most powerful effect. So indeed nothing is irrelevant.



> I am talking of the biologists from many sub fields of biology who research evolution..



I remember in this context a very well known biologist who explained to me what's the difference between plants and animals. _"Plants carry their soul outside"_ he said and I understood immediatelly. And I remember on the other side in this context a new "modern" veterinarian, who had looked at me with eyes which had said very clear _"What an unbelievable stupid idiot"_, when I explained a guinea pig, why I have to let euthanize it and when I expressed my hope we will meet us again in the other world. Indeed I believe I will be able to speak there in a better way with my animalic sisters and brothers. And they will answer much more clear. Heaven is paradise, isn't it?

Konrad Lorenz - famous biologist - wrote by the way once a book about evolution with the title "Die Rückseite des Spiegels" (The backside of the mirror). Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker - famous physicist - answered him with the critics (no: "critics" is not the speech of hate and mutual disparagement): "Die Rückseite des Spiegels - gespiegelt" (The backside of the mirror - mirrored).


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> Puhleeze, God did not create evolution. ...



Whoelse did?



> ... My hypothesis is Satan created evolution at the Tower of Babel and handed it down to King Nimrod.



I had to laugh a lot now. Creative power is not a domain of the devil. Anyway. Because god created Satan and even if Satan had created evolution - what sounds more impossible than only absurde in my ears - then god had indirectly created evolution too. So what? Evolution is evolution. It's a wonderful, fantastic world in which we live. And a crocodile, which eats your baby, is not doing so, because it is evil. It is doing so, because it is hungry. Only human beings are able to be evil.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> *It appears the creation scientists are right again.  Much of science supports the existence and work of God.  "“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.” Psalm 19:1*
> 
> *Gregor Mendel's discovery of natural selection spoke against Charles Darwin's theory of evolution*
> "Gregor Mendel crossed various races of edible peas.  When a red-flowered plant was crossed with a white-flowered one, the offspring were found to be red-flowered.  Mendel then crossed these red offspring with each other and found that they produced offspring of their own in the ratio of 3 reds : 1 white.
> 
> We can best understand this by considering the genes involved in these crosses.  A gene can be considered as a unit which determines a particular characteristic, in this case flower colour.  It can exist in one of two forms, one giving rise to red flowers and the other to white.  The offspring of the original cross of red-flowered plants with white were all red-flowered, although they did in fact possess both a gene for red flowers and a gene for white.
> 
> Mendel concluded that the red gene must be dominant to the white, so that any plant that possessed them both would be red.  When these red plants were bred with each other, it was possible for two white genes to come together and so give offspring that were white.  The chance that the offspring would receive at least one red gene is 3:1.
> 
> Mendel found that when he interbred the red-flowered plants obtained as the offspring of his original cross, he got white flowers produced as well as red.  Darwin's theory rested on the assumption that in such a case as this the white characteristic was a new character acquired by the young plants which their parents had not possessed.  After all, a race has got to acquire new characteristics if it is ever going to evolve.
> 
> Mendel showed that the characteristic had not been acquired.  It had been present all the time in the parents' generation, though masked by a more dominant gene.  If one applies statistics to Mendel's ideas one can show quite easily that the genes in the new generation exist in exactly the same frequency as they did in the parents' generation.  It might be possible to lose some genes by killing off those individuals that possessed them but it would never be possible to acquire new ones.
> 
> *Darwin's theory began to flounder when these facts came to light.* * It was saved from total eclipse by the emergence of a theory which said that genes could sometimes change to completely new forms. This radical change in the gene is known as a mutation.*
> 
> "This is the form in which Darwin's theory is believed today.  It is assumed that mutations can change the gene to a new form. The process of natural selection is said to operate by selecting out those new genes which are favourable to the organism and discarding others. ...
> 
> Darwin's ToE "The modern theory of evolution thus stands or falls on this question of mutation.  If mutations do not occur, it is impossible for evolution to progress.  We must therefore examine the question of mutations and see if they actually occur as evolutionists claim.
> 
> "Firstly, it is certain that mutations can and do occur.  Secondly, it is just as certain that any major change in a gene is always a change for the worse.  This is what we would expect.  Genes are complicated and wonderfully designed and any major change in them will lead to their functioning less efficiently.
> 
> *"This is admitted by geneticists after seventy years of intensive experimentation.  During that time they have induced thousands of mutations in various organisms, but have not been able to come up with one convincing case of a mutation that was clearly beneficial to the organism.  In fact, it is now generally admitted that mutations under natural conditions are so rare, and so often harmful, that when they do occur they are not of any significance to the genetics of a population of creatures.  Any individuals who do receive the mutations will tend to die out and so the genetic structure of the population as a whole will remain unaffected.*
> 
> 
> *Mutations are far from being able to produce new, vigorous genes which would enable a race of organisms to evolve.  They are extremely rare and detrimental events which do not alter the genetic structure of the race as a whole - except in some cases to weaken it.  This even applies to so-called favourable mutations such as the sickle cell anaemia trait and the drug-resistance of bacteria, but space will not allow discussion of these.  But even if mutations were to occur in the way that evolutionists claim, evolution would still be impossible."*
> 
> *Bottom line:  Mutations do not add new information, so evolution does not happen.  This means no humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs.*
> 
> Science That Backs Up The Bible and Casts Doubt on Evolution?
> 
> Darwin VS Mendel: Scientist showdown



In general you are right here: A change in genetical information is normally always only bad. Such changes follow the law "shit happens". But from time to time - very very seldom - for example in 1:1 000 000 changes - happens a wonder and a change in the genetical information in the microcosmos causes something, which shows in the mesocosmos (=the world where we live with our intuitive perception) a viewable advantage - or it is not only bad. Additionally biological functions are often very complex and a gene has often (perhaps always) more than only one result. It needs for example sometimes genes, which have no special context, except that they are not bad for an organism, and suddenly another genetical change becomes an advantage with them together. So for example a change 1 million years ago together with a change some thousand years ago and a change which happens today are able to build a new biological structure, basing on proteins which are produced from the DNA.

So two problems: We do not have any way to say genetical information is superflous (could be important in any future) - and we have normally no way to change only one special biological function by changing genes. And although most people think "evolution" is a new idea it is indeed a very old thing. We call it normally "cultivation" since thousands of years. The important step was only to see that the nature on its own is doing the same - but without any plan. Natural laws do not follow plans. That's not astonishing. But we should not do the same. We need knowledge, we need plans, we need orientation. And that's the real desaster in the moment: No one has really a good idea what he is doing in genetics. I think the best is to imitate what the nature is doing: changes in only very simple micro steps. And what no one should do is to carry genes from one species to another species. I'm sure there are very good reasons - although I'm not able to say which reasons - for the genetic separations of species. Bugs don't have sex with elephants in our world - and I fear to change this will be in our reality not funny at all.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> *It appears the creation scientists are right again.  Much of science supports the existence and work of God.  "“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.” Psalm 19:1*
> 
> *Gregor Mendel's discovery of natural selection spoke against Charles Darwin's theory of evolution*
> "Gregor Mendel crossed various races of edible peas.  When a red-flowered plant was crossed with a white-flowered one, the offspring were found to be red-flowered.  Mendel then crossed these red offspring with each other and found that they produced offspring of their own in the ratio of 3 reds : 1 white.
> 
> We can best understand this by considering the genes involved in these crosses.  A gene can be considered as a unit which determines a particular characteristic, in this case flower colour.  It can exist in one of two forms, one giving rise to red flowers and the other to white.  The offspring of the original cross of red-flowered plants with white were all red-flowered, although they did in fact possess both a gene for red flowers and a gene for white.
> 
> Mendel concluded that the red gene must be dominant to the white, so that any plant that possessed them both would be red.  When these red plants were bred with each other, it was possible for two white genes to come together and so give offspring that were white.  The chance that the offspring would receive at least one red gene is 3:1.
> 
> Mendel found that when he interbred the red-flowered plants obtained as the offspring of his original cross, he got white flowers produced as well as red.  Darwin's theory rested on the assumption that in such a case as this the white characteristic was a new character acquired by the young plants which their parents had not possessed.  After all, a race has got to acquire new characteristics if it is ever going to evolve.
> 
> Mendel showed that the characteristic had not been acquired.  It had been present all the time in the parents' generation, though masked by a more dominant gene.  If one applies statistics to Mendel's ideas one can show quite easily that the genes in the new generation exist in exactly the same frequency as they did in the parents' generation.  It might be possible to lose some genes by killing off those individuals that possessed them but it would never be possible to acquire new ones.
> 
> *Darwin's theory began to flounder when these facts came to light.* * It was saved from total eclipse by the emergence of a theory which said that genes could sometimes change to completely new forms. This radical change in the gene is known as a mutation.*
> 
> "This is the form in which Darwin's theory is believed today.  It is assumed that mutations can change the gene to a new form. The process of natural selection is said to operate by selecting out those new genes which are favourable to the organism and discarding others. ...
> 
> Darwin's ToE "The modern theory of evolution thus stands or falls on this question of mutation.  If mutations do not occur, it is impossible for evolution to progress.  We must therefore examine the question of mutations and see if they actually occur as evolutionists claim.
> 
> "Firstly, it is certain that mutations can and do occur.  Secondly, it is just as certain that any major change in a gene is always a change for the worse.  This is what we would expect.  Genes are complicated and wonderfully designed and any major change in them will lead to their functioning less efficiently.
> 
> *"This is admitted by geneticists after seventy years of intensive experimentation.  During that time they have induced thousands of mutations in various organisms, but have not been able to come up with one convincing case of a mutation that was clearly beneficial to the organism.  In fact, it is now generally admitted that mutations under natural conditions are so rare, and so often harmful, that when they do occur they are not of any significance to the genetics of a population of creatures.  Any individuals who do receive the mutations will tend to die out and so the genetic structure of the population as a whole will remain unaffected.*
> 
> 
> *Mutations are far from being able to produce new, vigorous genes which would enable a race of organisms to evolve.  They are extremely rare and detrimental events which do not alter the genetic structure of the race as a whole - except in some cases to weaken it.  This even applies to so-called favourable mutations such as the sickle cell anaemia trait and the drug-resistance of bacteria, but space will not allow discussion of these.  But even if mutations were to occur in the way that evolutionists claim, evolution would still be impossible."*
> 
> *Bottom line:  Mutations do not add new information, so evolution does not happen.  This means no humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs.*
> 
> Science That Backs Up The Bible and Casts Doubt on Evolution?
> 
> Darwin VS Mendel: Scientist showdown



Wow. That's a lot of pointless cut and paste nonsense.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> The greatest thinkers in history were all wrong or ignorant about a lot of things.



The greatest thinkers may have been wrong or ignorant, but they weren't _about a lot of things_.  They were more right than wrong because they were great thinkers.  It's people who think they were _wrong or ignorant about a lot of things _that are probably the ones were wrong or ignorant about a lot of things.

For example, we have liberal outrage.  Libs think if they are outraged, then they are thinking and being right about a lot of things such as Trump, climate change, tree hugging, abortions and so on.  I think this is why they are outraged about Christians and their religion.  They do not seem too outraged about Muslims tho.  I've patiently explained real science and how it backs up what the Bible says and they still DEFLECT, DENY, DISMISS and likely end up is a state of DESPAIR.  You know who these people are.  You are explaining how the science works and they are angry and call you names.  It seems like it is due to liberal outrage.  If libs aren't outraged about something, then they are thinking and using their wrong logic.  Maybe it's politics creeping in to science and technology and even religion.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The greatest thinkers in history were all wrong or ignorant about a lot of things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The greatest thinkers may have been wrong or ignorant, but they weren't _about a lot of things_.  They were more right than wrong because they were great thinkers.  It's people who think they were _wrong or ignorant about a lot of things _that are probably the ones were wrong or ignorant about a lot of things.
> 
> For example, we have liberal outrage.  Libs think if they are outraged, then they are thinking and being right about a lot of things such as Trump, climate change, tree hugging, abortions and so on.  I think this is why they are outraged about Christians and their religion.  They do not seem too outraged about Muslims tho.  I've patiently explained real science and how it backs up what the Bible says and they still DEFLECT, DENY, DISMISS and likely end up is a state of DESPAIR.  You know who these people are.  You are explaining how the science works and they are angry and call you names.  It seems like it is due to liberal outrage.  If libs aren't outraged about something, then they are thinking and using their wrong logic.  Maybe it's politics creeping in to science and technology and even religion.
Click to expand...

Einstein was a socialist and he thought quantum mechanics was wrong.  He also cheated on all his wives.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> Whoelse did?



You should know this.  God is never wrong; He's infallible.  Humans created evolution.  Charles Lyell/James Hutton created uniformitarianism and Charles Darwin created ToE in the 1850s.  Prior to that, evolutionary thinking and history were created by Epicureans, Stoics and those opposed to creationists.



zaangalewa said:


> I had to laugh a lot now. Creative power is not a domain of the devil. Anyway. Because god created Satan and even if Satan had created evolution - what sounds more impossible than only absurde in my ears - then god had indirectly created evolution too. So what? Evolution is evolution. It's a wonderful, fantastic world in which we live. And a crocodile, which eats your baby, is not doing so, because it is evil. It is doing so, because it is hungry. Only human beings are able to be evil.



I'm not sure what chemicals you are taking, but the Bible states Satan is the "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."  He is a fantastic liar and master trickster to such a point that he may have even fooled himself..  Perhaps, you, too, have had the wool pulled over their eyes because of evolution and false science.  If evolution was important or a fact, then we would all know it and accept it.  Many of us do not need it to live a life a joyful and honorable life.  If you're a student, one can learn it to pass the test and then forget it.  It doesn't happen.  None of it is observable, demonstrable or falsifiable.  This includes its history and thinking which came long before ToE.

Dr. Henry Morris states,

"Its top was a great temple shrine, emblazoned with zodiacal signs representing the hosts of heaven, Satan and his 'principalities and powers, rulers of the darkness of the world' (Ephesians 6:12). These evil spirits there perhaps met with Nimrod and his priests, to plan their long-range strategy against God and his redemptive purposes for the post-diluvian world. This included especially the development of a non-theistic cosmology, one which could explain the origin and meaning of the universe and man without acknowledging the true God of creation. Denial of God's power and sovereignty in creation is of course foundational in the rejection of His authority in every other sphere. . . . If something like this really happened, early in post-diluvian history, then Satan himself is the originator of the concept of evolution.

"One question remains. Assuming Satan to be the real source of the evolutionary concept, how did it originate in his mind? . . . A possible answer to this mystery could be that Satan, the father of lies, has not only deceived the whole world and the angelic hosts who followed him--he has even deceived himself! The only way he could really know about creation (just as the only way we can know about creation) was for God to tell him! . . . . He refused to believe and accept the Word of God concerning his own creation and place in God's economy . . . He therefore deceived himself into supposing that all things, including himself and including God, had been evolved by natural processes out of the primordial stuff of the universe. . . ." (Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974, pp 74-75)."

One thing we know for sure.  Satan believes in God.  If there is a weakness to Morris' thinking, it's he makes a lot of assumptions of God telling Satan what he did.  Thus, it may not be based on what the facts were since that isn't in the Bible.  That said, we know evolutionary thinking started in the early times long before Hutton, Lyell and Darwin, so it must have a source.  It could just be the Epicureans or Stoics or others.

Even today, the libs continue to make up stuff about the Tower of Babel -- How climate change caused the world's first empire to collapse.

Here's more about the the Tower of Babel and King Nimrod if you're interested -- Tower of Babel - Wikipedia, Nimrod - Wikipedia.  We also have the Bible.  The story of the Tower and City of Babel is found in Genesis 11:1-9. The setting given for the account us on the plain of Shinar to the final line where the city is identified with Babel. It is clear that the events recorded took place in ancient southern Mesopotamia on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River.

Babel was founded by King Nimrod, according to Genesis 10:9-10.

Up until this point in the Bible, the whole world had one language, meaning one common speech for all people. Hebrew?

The people of the earth had become skilled in construction and decided to build a city with a tower that would reach to heaven. By building the tower, they wanted to make a name for themselves and also prevent the people from being scattered.

God came to see their city and the tower they were building. He perceived their intentions, and in his infinite wisdom, he knew this "stairway to heaven" would only lead the people away from God.

God observed what a powerful force their unity of purpose created. As a result, he confused their language, causing them to speak many different languages so they would not understand each other. By doing this, God thwarted their plans. He also scattered the people of the city all over the face of the earth.

*Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel?*
http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html

*The Tower of Babel - Bible Story Summary *
Tower of Babel Story: The Perils of Unity, Pride, and Purpose

How does Satan come into this? We saw after the fall with Adam and Eve, Cain killed his brother Abel. Wouldn't this be a time when Satan would come into play once again?

King Nimrod came into existence shortly after the Flood and that humans had not yet organized themselves into nations. Nimrod became "king in the land of Shinar (Assyria/Mesopotamia), was, according to the Book of Genesis and Books of Chronicles, the son of Cush, therefore the great-grandson of Noah. The Bible states that he was "a mighty hunter before the Lord [and] .... began to be mighty in the earth".[2] Extra-biblical traditions associating him with the Tower of Babel led to his reputation as a king who was rebellious against God. His gain in power and self-glorifying behavior fueled his desire for revenge against God for destroying his ancestors.

"Josephus wrote_:_

Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it were through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power. He also said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to reach. And that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers.

Now the multitude were very ready to follow the determination of Nimrod, and to esteem it a piece of cowardice to submit to God; and they built a tower, neither sparing any pains, nor being in any degree negligent about the work: and, by reason of the multitude of hands employed in it, it grew very high, sooner than any one could expect; but the thickness of it was so great, and it was so strongly built, that thereby its great height seemed, upon the view, to be less than it really was. It was built of burnt brick, cemented together with mortar, made of bitumen, that it might not be liable to admit water. When God saw that they acted so madly, he did not resolve to destroy them utterly, since they were not grown wiser by the destruction of the former sinners; but he caused a tumult among them, by producing in them diverse languages, and causing that, through the multitude of those languages, they should not be able to understand one another. The place wherein they built the tower is now called Babylon, because of the confusion of that language which they readily understood before; for the Hebrews mean by the word Babel, confusion ."


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The greatest thinkers in history were all wrong or ignorant about a lot of things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The greatest thinkers may have been wrong or ignorant, but they weren't _about a lot of things_.  They were more right than wrong because they were great thinkers.  It's people who think they were _wrong or ignorant about a lot of things _that are probably the ones were wrong or ignorant about a lot of things.
> 
> For example, we have liberal outrage.  Libs think if they are outraged, then they are thinking and being right about a lot of things such as Trump, climate change, tree hugging, abortions and so on.  I think this is why they are outraged about Christians and their religion.  They do not seem too outraged about Muslims tho.  I've patiently explained real science and how it backs up what the Bible says and they still DEFLECT, DENY, DISMISS and likely end up is a state of DESPAIR.  You know who these people are.  You are explaining how the science works and they are angry and call you names.  It seems like it is due to liberal outrage.  If libs aren't outraged about something, then they are thinking and using their wrong logic.  Maybe it's politics creeping in to science and technology and even religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Einstein was a socialist and he thought quantum mechanics was wrong.  He also cheated on all his wives.
Click to expand...


And how do you come up with this?


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> In general you are right here: A change in genetical information is normally always only bad. Such changes follow the law "shit happens". But from time to time - very very seldom - for example in 1:1 000 000 changes - happens a wonder and a change in the genetical information in the microcosmos causes something, which shows in the mesocosmos (=the world where we live with our intuitive perception) a viewable advantage - or it is not only bad. Additionally biological functions are often very complex and a gene has often (perhaps always) more than only one result. It needs for example sometimes genes, which have no special context, except that they are not bad for an organism, and suddenly another genetical change becomes an advantage with them together. So for example a change 1 million years ago together with a change some thousand years ago and a change which happens today are able to build a new biological structure, basing on proteins which are produced from the DNA.



What evidence do you have for one in a million change?  How did you come up with the probability?  To demonstrate what you said, we need to know the probabilities, i.e. the chance that it is going to happen again in the future.  Then to verify that what you said happened in the past, we would have to do simulations to see if it did happen in the past.



zaangalewa said:


> So two problems: We do not have any way to say genetical information is superflous (could be important in any future) - and we have normally no way to change only one special biological function by changing genes. And although most people think "evolution" is a new idea it is indeed a very old thing. We call it normally "cultivation" since thousands of years. The important step was only to see that the nature on its own is doing the same - but without any plan. Natural laws do not follow plans. That's not astonishing. But we should not do the same. We need knowledge, we need plans, we need orientation. And that's the real desaster in the moment: No one has really a good idea what he is doing in genetics. I think the best is to imitate what the nature is doing: changes in only very simple micro steps. And what no one should do is to carry genes from one species to another species. I'm sure there are very good reasons - although I'm not able to say which reasons - for the genetic separations of species. Bugs don't have sex with elephants in our world - and I fear to change this will be in our reality not funny at all.



I'm not even following your logic to this.  A lot of it is your own assertions.


----------



## zaangalewa

bripat9643 said:


> ... Einstein was a socialist and he thought quantum mechanics was wrong.  He also cheated on all his wives.



What's nonsense - everything what you say here. He got by the way the noble price for quantum mechaincs ("the photoelectric effect") and not for his wonderful theory of relativity. And the discussions between Albert Einstein and his friend Nils Bohr about quantum mechanics are a brilliant delight for everyone who loves natural science.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> None of it is observable, demonstrable or falsifiable.


The ToE is falsifiable.  Every fossil that has ever been found was a potential falsifier.  If primate was found buried with a dinosaur it would be all over for the ToE.  Dig through the fossil record and you'll observe evolution taking place.  Talk to a microbiologist and you can ask about his observations of evolution. 

It is creationism that is not observable, demonstrable or falsifiable.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Everything is irrelevant for you, what you do not understand


No you quack, your statement was irrelevant. You tried to get away with denigrating  the efforts of moderm scientists, despite knowing less than nothing about their work, and especially about this topic, as compared to them. I called you out and mocked you for it, just as you deserve.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoelse did?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should know this.  God is never wrong; He's infallible.  Humans created evolution. ...
Click to expand...


The "theory of evolution" is this what scientists think about - but evolution on its own is a natural law in the same way how gravity is a natural law. No human being created gravity. No human being created evolution. We are able to understand what's going on in the nature all around on a very simle reason: God is not a liar. He is teu adn his creation is real. And so we are able to find out what's real or not real on our own - for example in experiments. Natural scientists ask nature what it is doing how - they do not ask god what he is doing why. The believers in atheism have often the problem not to be able to separate their belief and their knowledge about natural laws.

Example. Because the natural law "evolution" exists people are able to be farmers and shepherds. Jesus for example was a carpenter. That's very important too. But Jesus was not crucified because he was a carpenter.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> In general you are right here: A change in genetical information is normally always only bad. Such changes follow the law "shit happens". But from time to time - very very seldom - for example in 1:1 000 000 changes - happens a wonder and a change in the genetical information in the microcosmos causes something, which shows in the mesocosmos (=the world where we live with our intuitive perception) a viewable advantage - or it is not only bad. Additionally biological functions are often very complex and a gene has often (perhaps always) more than only one result. It needs for example sometimes genes, which have no special context, except that they are not bad for an organism, and suddenly another genetical change becomes an advantage with them together. So for example a change 1 million years ago together with a change some thousand years ago and a change which happens today are able to build a new biological structure, basing on proteins which are produced from the DNA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence do you have for one in a million change?
Click to expand...


None. That's only an expression for "extremely seldom". Everything what has to do with life is in this category. Life on its own is an extremely seldom manifestation of "dust".



> How did you come up with the probability?  To demonstrate what you said, we need to know the probabilities, i.e. the chance that it is going to happen again in the future.  Then to verify that what you said happened in the past, we would have to do simulations to see if it did happen in the past.



I hate this stupid form how US-Americans "discuss" very much.



> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So two problems: We do not have any way to say genetical information is superflous (could be important in any future) - and we have normally no way to change only one special biological function by changing genes. And although most people think "evolution" is a new idea it is indeed a very old thing. We call it normally "cultivation" since thousands of years. The important step was only to see that the nature on its own is doing the same - but without any plan. Natural laws do not follow plans. That's not astonishing. But we should not do the same. We need knowledge, we need plans, we need orientation. And that's the real desaster in the moment: No one has really a good idea what he is doing in genetics. I think the best is to imitate what the nature is doing: changes in only very simple micro steps. And what no one should do is to carry genes from one species to another species. I'm sure there are very good reasons - although I'm not able to say which reasons - for the genetic separations of species. Bugs don't have sex with elephants in our world - and I fear to change this will be in our reality not funny at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not even following your logic to this.  A lot of it is your own assertions.
Click to expand...


Everything what I say comes from me. Everything what you say comes from you.


----------



## zaangalewa

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of it is observable, demonstrable or falsifiable.
> 
> 
> 
> The ToE is falsifiable.
Click to expand...


A theory is as far as I know not falsifiable. A theory is a summary of facts including a common intepreation of this facts - but if one of the facts should be wrong this means not automatically the theory is wrong - it means only the theory has to be modified.



> Every fossil that has ever been found was a potential falsifier.  If primate was found buried with a dinosaur it would be all over for the ToE.  Dig through the fossil record and you'll observe evolution taking place.  Talk to a microbiologist and you can ask about his observations of evolution.
> 
> It is creationism that is not observable, demonstrable or falsifiable.



First of all is "the creation" everything what's observable, demonstrable or falsifiable (in sense of the philosophy "empirism"). And second is no one who believes god created the worlds and the heavens a so called "creationist". To believe in god is not a natural science nor is empirism god. Only god is god. No one has to study mathematics for example to have to see that god loves all of his children or to make a "theory of the love of god" for natural scientists and their experiments.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> A theory is as far as I know not falsifiable.


Well now you know, it is.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything is irrelevant for you, what you do not understand
> 
> 
> 
> No you quack, your statement was irrelevant. You tried to get away with denigrating  the efforts of moderm scientists, despite knowing less than nothing about their work, and especially about this topic, as compared to them. I called you out and mocked you for it, just as you deserve.
Click to expand...


Einstein said once: _'Some people have a horizon with the radius 0. They call this their standpoint.' _(translation from me)


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> A theory is as far as I know not falsifiable.
> 
> 
> 
> Well now you know, it is.
Click to expand...


Now I know again that I'm a totally stupid idiot, because I still try to speak with people from the English speaking world, what's totally senseless.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The greatest thinkers in history were all wrong or ignorant about a lot of things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The greatest thinkers may have been wrong or ignorant, but they weren't _about a lot of things_.  They were more right than wrong because they were great thinkers.  It's people who think they were _wrong or ignorant about a lot of things _that are probably the ones were wrong or ignorant about a lot of things.
> 
> For example, we have liberal outrage.  Libs think if they are outraged, then they are thinking and being right about a lot of things such as Trump, climate change, tree hugging, abortions and so on.  I think this is why they are outraged about Christians and their religion.  They do not seem too outraged about Muslims tho.  I've patiently explained real science and how it backs up what the Bible says and they still DEFLECT, DENY, DISMISS and likely end up is a state of DESPAIR.  You know who these people are.  You are explaining how the science works and they are angry and call you names.  It seems like it is due to liberal outrage.  If libs aren't outraged about something, then they are thinking and using their wrong logic.  Maybe it's politics creeping in to science and technology and even religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Einstein was a socialist and he thought quantum mechanics was wrong.  He also cheated on all his wives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how do you come up with this?
Click to expand...

I read books about Einstein.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> A theory is as far as I know not falsifiable.
> 
> 
> 
> Well now you know, it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now I know again that I'm a totally stupid idiot, because I still try to speak with people from the English speaking world, what's totally senseless.
Click to expand...

what you said about theories was 100% ass-backwards wrong, just like nearly everything you have said about science in this thread.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoelse did?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should know this.  God is never wrong; He's infallible.  Humans created evolution.  Charles Lyell/James Hutton created uniformitarianism and Charles Darwin created ToE in the 1850s.  Prior to that, evolutionary thinking and history were created by Epicureans, Stoics and those opposed to creationists.
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had to laugh a lot now. Creative power is not a domain of the devil. Anyway. Because god created Satan and even if Satan had created evolution - what sounds more impossible than only absurde in my ears - then god had indirectly created evolution too. So what? Evolution is evolution. It's a wonderful, fantastic world in which we live. And a crocodile, which eats your baby, is not doing so, because it is evil. It is doing so, because it is hungry. Only human beings are able to be evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what chemicals you are taking, but the Bible states Satan is the "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."  He is a fantastic liar and master trickster to such a point that he may have even fooled himself..  Perhaps, you, too, have had the wool pulled over their eyes because of evolution and false science.  If evolution was important or a fact, then we would all know it and accept it.  Many of us do not need it to live a life a joyful and honorable life.  If you're a student, one can learn it to pass the test and then forget it.  It doesn't happen.  None of it is observable, demonstrable or falsifiable.  This includes its history and thinking which came long before ToE.
> 
> Dr. Henry Morris states,
> 
> "Its top was a great temple shrine, emblazoned with zodiacal signs representing the hosts of heaven, Satan and his 'principalities and powers, rulers of the darkness of the world' (Ephesians 6:12). These evil spirits there perhaps met with Nimrod and his priests, to plan their long-range strategy against God and his redemptive purposes for the post-diluvian world. This included especially the development of a non-theistic cosmology, one which could explain the origin and meaning of the universe and man without acknowledging the true God of creation. Denial of God's power and sovereignty in creation is of course foundational in the rejection of His authority in every other sphere. . . . If something like this really happened, early in post-diluvian history, then Satan himself is the originator of the concept of evolution.
> 
> "One question remains. Assuming Satan to be the real source of the evolutionary concept, how did it originate in his mind? . . . A possible answer to this mystery could be that Satan, the father of lies, has not only deceived the whole world and the angelic hosts who followed him--he has even deceived himself! The only way he could really know about creation (just as the only way we can know about creation) was for God to tell him! . . . . He refused to believe and accept the Word of God concerning his own creation and place in God's economy . . . He therefore deceived himself into supposing that all things, including himself and including God, had been evolved by natural processes out of the primordial stuff of the universe. . . ." (Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974, pp 74-75)."
> 
> One thing we know for sure.  Satan believes in God.  If there is a weakness to Morris' thinking, it's he makes a lot of assumptions of God telling Satan what he did.  Thus, it may not be based on what the facts were since that isn't in the Bible.  That said, we know evolutionary thinking started in the early times long before Hutton, Lyell and Darwin, so it must have a source.  It could just be the Epicureans or Stoics or others.
> 
> Even today, the libs continue to make up stuff about the Tower of Babel -- How climate change caused the world's first empire to collapse.
> 
> Here's more about the the Tower of Babel and King Nimrod if you're interested -- Tower of Babel - Wikipedia, Nimrod - Wikipedia.  We also have the Bible.  The story of the Tower and City of Babel is found in Genesis 11:1-9. The setting given for the account us on the plain of Shinar to the final line where the city is identified with Babel. It is clear that the events recorded took place in ancient southern Mesopotamia on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River.
> 
> Babel was founded by King Nimrod, according to Genesis 10:9-10.
> 
> Up until this point in the Bible, the whole world had one language, meaning one common speech for all people. Hebrew?
> 
> The people of the earth had become skilled in construction and decided to build a city with a tower that would reach to heaven. By building the tower, they wanted to make a name for themselves and also prevent the people from being scattered.
> 
> God came to see their city and the tower they were building. He perceived their intentions, and in his infinite wisdom, he knew this "stairway to heaven" would only lead the people away from God.
> 
> God observed what a powerful force their unity of purpose created. As a result, he confused their language, causing them to speak many different languages so they would not understand each other. By doing this, God thwarted their plans. He also scattered the people of the city all over the face of the earth.
> 
> *Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel?*
> http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html
> 
> *The Tower of Babel - Bible Story Summary *
> Tower of Babel Story: The Perils of Unity, Pride, and Purpose
> 
> How does Satan come into this? We saw after the fall with Adam and Eve, Cain killed his brother Abel. Wouldn't this be a time when Satan would come into play once again?
> 
> King Nimrod came into existence shortly after the Flood and that humans had not yet organized themselves into nations. Nimrod became "king in the land of Shinar (Assyria/Mesopotamia), was, according to the Book of Genesis and Books of Chronicles, the son of Cush, therefore the great-grandson of Noah. The Bible states that he was "a mighty hunter before the Lord [and] .... began to be mighty in the earth".[2] Extra-biblical traditions associating him with the Tower of Babel led to his reputation as a king who was rebellious against God. His gain in power and self-glorifying behavior fueled his desire for revenge against God for destroying his ancestors.
> 
> "Josephus wrote_:_
> 
> Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it were through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power. He also said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to reach. And that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers.
> 
> Now the multitude were very ready to follow the determination of Nimrod, and to esteem it a piece of cowardice to submit to God; and they built a tower, neither sparing any pains, nor being in any degree negligent about the work: and, by reason of the multitude of hands employed in it, it grew very high, sooner than any one could expect; but the thickness of it was so great, and it was so strongly built, that thereby its great height seemed, upon the view, to be less than it really was. It was built of burnt brick, cemented together with mortar, made of bitumen, that it might not be liable to admit water. When God saw that they acted so madly, he did not resolve to destroy them utterly, since they were not grown wiser by the destruction of the former sinners; but he caused a tumult among them, by producing in them diverse languages, and causing that, through the multitude of those languages, they should not be able to understand one another. The place wherein they built the tower is now called Babylon, because of the confusion of that language which they readily understood before; for the Hebrews mean by the word Babel, confusion ."
Click to expand...


Humans created all of the gods who preceded your gods. Humans created the more recent inventions of your gods which is why your gods share so much in common with the earlier Greek gods. Your gods possess many human attributes because they were invented by humans.


----------



## bripat9643

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoelse did?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should know this.  God is never wrong; He's infallible.  Humans created evolution.  Charles Lyell/James Hutton created uniformitarianism and Charles Darwin created ToE in the 1850s.  Prior to that, evolutionary thinking and history were created by Epicureans, Stoics and those opposed to creationists.
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had to laugh a lot now. Creative power is not a domain of the devil. Anyway. Because god created Satan and even if Satan had created evolution - what sounds more impossible than only absurde in my ears - then god had indirectly created evolution too. So what? Evolution is evolution. It's a wonderful, fantastic world in which we live. And a crocodile, which eats your baby, is not doing so, because it is evil. It is doing so, because it is hungry. Only human beings are able to be evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what chemicals you are taking, but the Bible states Satan is the "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."  He is a fantastic liar and master trickster to such a point that he may have even fooled himself..  Perhaps, you, too, have had the wool pulled over their eyes because of evolution and false science.  If evolution was important or a fact, then we would all know it and accept it.  Many of us do not need it to live a life a joyful and honorable life.  If you're a student, one can learn it to pass the test and then forget it.  It doesn't happen.  None of it is observable, demonstrable or falsifiable.  This includes its history and thinking which came long before ToE.
> 
> Dr. Henry Morris states,
> 
> "Its top was a great temple shrine, emblazoned with zodiacal signs representing the hosts of heaven, Satan and his 'principalities and powers, rulers of the darkness of the world' (Ephesians 6:12). These evil spirits there perhaps met with Nimrod and his priests, to plan their long-range strategy against God and his redemptive purposes for the post-diluvian world. This included especially the development of a non-theistic cosmology, one which could explain the origin and meaning of the universe and man without acknowledging the true God of creation. Denial of God's power and sovereignty in creation is of course foundational in the rejection of His authority in every other sphere. . . . If something like this really happened, early in post-diluvian history, then Satan himself is the originator of the concept of evolution.
> 
> "One question remains. Assuming Satan to be the real source of the evolutionary concept, how did it originate in his mind? . . . A possible answer to this mystery could be that Satan, the father of lies, has not only deceived the whole world and the angelic hosts who followed him--he has even deceived himself! The only way he could really know about creation (just as the only way we can know about creation) was for God to tell him! . . . . He refused to believe and accept the Word of God concerning his own creation and place in God's economy . . . He therefore deceived himself into supposing that all things, including himself and including God, had been evolved by natural processes out of the primordial stuff of the universe. . . ." (Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974, pp 74-75)."
> 
> One thing we know for sure.  Satan believes in God.  If there is a weakness to Morris' thinking, it's he makes a lot of assumptions of God telling Satan what he did.  Thus, it may not be based on what the facts were since that isn't in the Bible.  That said, we know evolutionary thinking started in the early times long before Hutton, Lyell and Darwin, so it must have a source.  It could just be the Epicureans or Stoics or others.
> 
> Even today, the libs continue to make up stuff about the Tower of Babel -- How climate change caused the world's first empire to collapse.
> 
> Here's more about the the Tower of Babel and King Nimrod if you're interested -- Tower of Babel - Wikipedia, Nimrod - Wikipedia.  We also have the Bible.  The story of the Tower and City of Babel is found in Genesis 11:1-9. The setting given for the account us on the plain of Shinar to the final line where the city is identified with Babel. It is clear that the events recorded took place in ancient southern Mesopotamia on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River.
> 
> Babel was founded by King Nimrod, according to Genesis 10:9-10.
> 
> Up until this point in the Bible, the whole world had one language, meaning one common speech for all people. Hebrew?
> 
> The people of the earth had become skilled in construction and decided to build a city with a tower that would reach to heaven. By building the tower, they wanted to make a name for themselves and also prevent the people from being scattered.
> 
> God came to see their city and the tower they were building. He perceived their intentions, and in his infinite wisdom, he knew this "stairway to heaven" would only lead the people away from God.
> 
> God observed what a powerful force their unity of purpose created. As a result, he confused their language, causing them to speak many different languages so they would not understand each other. By doing this, God thwarted their plans. He also scattered the people of the city all over the face of the earth.
> 
> *Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel?*
> http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html
> 
> *The Tower of Babel - Bible Story Summary *
> Tower of Babel Story: The Perils of Unity, Pride, and Purpose
> 
> How does Satan come into this? We saw after the fall with Adam and Eve, Cain killed his brother Abel. Wouldn't this be a time when Satan would come into play once again?
> 
> King Nimrod came into existence shortly after the Flood and that humans had not yet organized themselves into nations. Nimrod became "king in the land of Shinar (Assyria/Mesopotamia), was, according to the Book of Genesis and Books of Chronicles, the son of Cush, therefore the great-grandson of Noah. The Bible states that he was "a mighty hunter before the Lord [and] .... began to be mighty in the earth".[2] Extra-biblical traditions associating him with the Tower of Babel led to his reputation as a king who was rebellious against God. His gain in power and self-glorifying behavior fueled his desire for revenge against God for destroying his ancestors.
> 
> "Josephus wrote_:_
> 
> Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it were through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power. He also said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to reach. And that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers.
> 
> Now the multitude were very ready to follow the determination of Nimrod, and to esteem it a piece of cowardice to submit to God; and they built a tower, neither sparing any pains, nor being in any degree negligent about the work: and, by reason of the multitude of hands employed in it, it grew very high, sooner than any one could expect; but the thickness of it was so great, and it was so strongly built, that thereby its great height seemed, upon the view, to be less than it really was. It was built of burnt brick, cemented together with mortar, made of bitumen, that it might not be liable to admit water. When God saw that they acted so madly, he did not resolve to destroy them utterly, since they were not grown wiser by the destruction of the former sinners; but he caused a tumult among them, by producing in them diverse languages, and causing that, through the multitude of those languages, they should not be able to understand one another. The place wherein they built the tower is now called Babylon, because of the confusion of that language which they readily understood before; for the Hebrews mean by the word Babel, confusion ."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humans created all of the gods who preceded your gods. Humans created the more recent inventions of your gods which is why your gods share so much in common with the earlier Greek gods. Your gods possess many human attributes because they were invented by humans.
Click to expand...

James Bond actually believes that God has a penis.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of it is observable, demonstrable or falsifiable.
> 
> 
> 
> The ToE is falsifiable.  Every fossil that has ever been found was a potential falsifier.  If primate was found buried with a dinosaur it would be all over for the ToE.  Dig through the fossil record and you'll observe evolution taking place.  Talk to a microbiologist and you can ask about his observations of evolution.
> 
> It is creationism that is not observable, demonstrable or falsifiable.
Click to expand...


Is that what the evos claimed when they found the fossil?  For example, we have tailed monkey to tailless monkey.  I don't think there was a fossil to show that.  The fossil is supposed to have a test to show that the claim could be false.

Anyway, ToE has been shown to be false from what you just said haha -- New Study Supports Idea That Primates, Dinosaurs Coexisted.  We do not see any evolution taking place.  All we get are hypotheses that it did take place.  Very little transitional fossil evidence.

Your last statement is BS.  We found the chicken came before the egg in 2017 because the protein found outside the shell can only be produced by the chicken.  It's a fact now.  One day, a chickens (hens and roosters) popped into existence.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> Evolution on its own is a natural law in the same way how gravity is a natural law



Boy, are you off.  Evolution isn't a law; It's a theory.  We have the law of gravity because we can do calculations on it.  We have Mendel's laws of heredity because we can do calculations on it and derive probability.  What calculations can you do with ToE?


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> None. That's only an expression for "extremely seldom". Everything what has to do with life is in this category. Life on its own is an extremely seldom manifestation of "dust".



None means it won't happen in the future.  Obviously, if there is zero chance of something happening, then our trials will show that it did not happen in the past.



zaangalewa said:


> I hate this stupid form how US-Americans "discuss" very much.



I'm only asking in order to clarify so I am clear in what you are saying.  Part of it is language.  I am not used to hearing extremely seldom.  You brought up life.  We do not have life without God.  The dust takes shape and becomes animated with his breath of life.  This does not happen otherwise.  There is no common ancestor that led to it.



zaangalewa said:


> Everything what I say comes from me. Everything what you say comes from you.



That's fine.  You are entitled to opinions.  I just did not see an argument to back what you are stating such as God created evolution or evolution is a natural law.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The greatest thinkers in history were all wrong or ignorant about a lot of things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The greatest thinkers may have been wrong or ignorant, but they weren't _about a lot of things_.  They were more right than wrong because they were great thinkers.  It's people who think they were _wrong or ignorant about a lot of things _that are probably the ones were wrong or ignorant about a lot of things.
> 
> For example, we have liberal outrage.  Libs think if they are outraged, then they are thinking and being right about a lot of things such as Trump, climate change, tree hugging, abortions and so on.  I think this is why they are outraged about Christians and their religion.  They do not seem too outraged about Muslims tho.  I've patiently explained real science and how it backs up what the Bible says and they still DEFLECT, DENY, DISMISS and likely end up is a state of DESPAIR.  You know who these people are.  You are explaining how the science works and they are angry and call you names.  It seems like it is due to liberal outrage.  If libs aren't outraged about something, then they are thinking and using their wrong logic.  Maybe it's politics creeping in to science and technology and even religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Einstein was a socialist and he thought quantum mechanics was wrong.  He also cheated on all his wives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how do you come up with this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read books about Einstein.
Click to expand...


Can you reference the book(s) you got this from?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Humans created all of the gods who preceded your gods.



Then what created spacetime?  You keep avoiding answering my questions.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> James Bond actually believes that God has a penis.



Never really thought about it, but since you came up with it so you must of dreamed about it.  Did you say something like, "Oh my God!"


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> James Bond actually believes that God has a penis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never really thought about it, but since you came up with it so you must of dreamed about it.  Did you say something like, "Oh my God!"
Click to expand...

Do you believe God is male or female?


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> A theory is as far as I know not falsifiable.
> 
> 
> 
> Well now you know, it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now I know again that I'm a totally stupid idiot, because I still try to speak with people from the English speaking world, what's totally senseless.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what you said about theories was 100% ass-backwards wrong, just like nearly everything you have said about science in this thread.
Click to expand...


If you compare the standard theory of quantum mechanics of the year 1979 with the standard theory of quantum mechanics of the year 2019 then the greatest problem of this theory is that we are still not able to replace it with a better theory.

But let me say to the falsificaion of a theory this here (I will not translate it now) :

_"Die Falsifizierbarkeit einer Theorie charakterisiert Popper nun durch die Eigenschaft, die Menge aller logisch möglichen Basissätze in zwei nicht leere Teilmengen zu zerlegen: Die Menge der Basissätze, mit denen die Theorie unvereinbar ist (von ihm auch „empirischer Gehalt“ genannt), und die Menge, mit denen die Theorie vereinbar ist. Um also nachzuweisen, dass eine Theorie falsifizierbar ist, reicht es nach Popper aus, einen logisch möglichen Basissatz anzugeben, der der Theorie widerspricht. Dieser Basissatz müsse weder wahr noch geprüft noch anerkannt sein."_
Source: Falsifikationismus – Wikipedia

I doubt about that this reason makes a big sense, which Karl Popper gave for the falsification of a theory. But let me say: You are right  - I was wrong. Also a complete theory in natural science seems to be falsifyable. In general I agree everything in natural science has to do with a intentionally repeatable experience. Nevertheless we are for example not able to repeat a wonder like the universe. In case of the universe you can see that something is existing what's partially out of our experience.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> James Bond actually believes that God has a penis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never really thought about it, but since you came up with it so you must of dreamed about it.  Did you say something like, "Oh my God!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe God is male or female?
Click to expand...


Is it why your avatar has his mouth open haha?

You know this.  It's in the Bible.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution on its own is a natural law in the same way how gravity is a natural law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, are you off.  Evolution isn't a law; It's a theory. ...
Click to expand...


No. The theory of evolution is what we [are able to] say about real evolution. The question is always what is real when we speak with each other. And depending on the standpoints and horizons we are even able to say "nothing is real, because nothing exists". But in case of evolution compare your hand with the hand of a gorilla and the hand of a bear. OiIa - that's it: So easy is it to see what evolution is doing.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> If you compare the standard theory of quantum mechanics of the year 1979 with the standard theory of quantum mechanics of the year 2019 then the greatest problem of this theory is that we are still not able to replace it with a better theory.








Are we stuck in the 80s (1979 but close enough)?  The Copenhagen Interpretation is what we have.  Was there a breakthrough to change our views?

Don't expect an answer from Fort Fun Indiana.  He's been friendzoned long time .


----------



## james bond

Here's my take on the Copenhagen Interpretation.  God continues to expand the universe.  We can only see a snapshot (or a collection of them, e.g. when we are viewing Halley's comet or a total solar eclipse) when we take a look to see a view.  Otherwise, the universe and spacetime continues to move on in the background which we cannot see.  This is what happens in the quantum world, as well.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you compare the standard theory of quantum mechanics of the year 1979 with the standard theory of quantum mechanics of the year 2019 then the greatest problem of this theory is that we are still not able to replace it with a better theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we stuck in the 80s (1979 but close enough)?  The Copenhagen Interpretation is what we have.  Was there a breakthrough to change our views?
> 
> Don't expect an answer from Fort Fun Indiana.  He's been friendzoned long time .
Click to expand...


A problem is for example that the expansion of the universe accelerates since some billion years. What to do with this fact? Where's the theory which is able to enlighten us in a better way? Oh by the way: Because the universe is expanding from every point into all directions every point is always in the middle. And who is really able to believe a structure, where every point is always in the middle of the universe, is not made from god with smiling eyes?


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> And who is really able to believe a structure, where every point is always in the middle of the universe, is not made from god with smiling eyes?



No, the universe is bounded and not boundless like atheist scientists think.  There will be an end at some time.  This has been prophecized.  There is a true center.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who is really able to believe a structure, where every point is always in the middle of the universe, is not made from god with smiling eyes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the universe is bounded and not boundless like atheist scientists think.  There will be an end at some time.  This has been prophecized.  There is a true center.
Click to expand...


You can support that with scientific evidence in the Bibles?

Perhaps some research from the Henry Morris college for the silly.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans created all of the gods who preceded your gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what created spacetime?  You keep avoiding answering my questions.
Click to expand...


The space time that we are aware of was created billions of years ago as the result of a major disturbance to matter and energy.

See? I have addressed your question multiple times.

We know who created your particular version of the gods. Why are your human invented versions of the gods to be accepted as opposed to other, human invented versions of gods? You keep avoiding answering that question.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who is really able to believe a structure, where every point is always in the middle of the universe, is not made from god with smiling eyes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the universe is bounded and not boundless like atheist scientists think.  There will be an end at some time.  This has been prophecized.  There is a true center.
Click to expand...


The center is everywhere. The universe has no "before" and nowhere is an "outside" while every point seems to be in the middle. And the most strange idea: the sum of all positive and negative energies of the universe could be in total 0. But what do we say about an accelerating something without "before", "outside" and without energy, if we could watch it from a point of the not existing outside? ... To be honest: I find the universe a very funny thing. Wherein is it expanding - accelerating - and why accelerating? Within an endless space or within a nothing - or within a not existing nothing?  ... And what is much more funny: We are [a part of] the universe on our own!


----------



## zaangalewa

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans created all of the gods who preceded your gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what created spacetime?  You keep avoiding answering my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The space time that we are aware of was created billions of years ago as the result of a major disturbance to matter and energy.
> 
> See? I have addressed your question multiple times.
> 
> We know who created your particular version of the gods. Why are your human invented versions of the gods to be accepted as opposed to other, human invented versions of gods? You keep avoiding answering that question.
Click to expand...


Gods and god are totally different things. God is not a kind of super-hero. He's our father. It made sense to send the own son Jesus to us. God shows he is with us - in joy and suffering - in every step of our lifes.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> James Bond actually believes that God has a penis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never really thought about it, but since you came up with it so you must of dreamed about it.  Did you say something like, "Oh my God!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe God is male or female?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it why your avatar has his mouth open haha?
> 
> You know this.  It's in the Bible.
Click to expand...

Then you believe God has a penis.

What would he do with a penis?


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Is that what the evos claimed when they found the fossil?  For example, we have tailed monkey to tailless monkey.  I don't think there was a fossil to show that.  The fossil is supposed to have a test to show that the claim could be false.


You don't understand how fossils could falsify the ToE.  The lack of a fossil proves nothing.  If the ToE says tailed monkeys evolved into tailless monkeys (I have no idea if this is really true)  and we find a fossil of a tailless monkey that is older than any occurrence of a tailed monkey that would falsify the theory. 



james bond said:


> Anyway, ToE has been shown to be false from what you just said haha -- New Study Supports Idea That Primates, Dinosaurs Coexisted.  We do not see any evolution taking place.  All we get are hypotheses that it did take place.  Very little transitional fossil evidence.


I stand corrected, I didn't know that the primate lineage went back so far.  I should have said that if an fossil ape were found with the dinos the ToE would be in trouble.  And you're completely wrong about transitional fossils since EVERY fossil ever found is transitional.



james bond said:


> Your last statement is BS.  We found the chicken came before the egg in 2017 because the protein found outside the shell can only be produced by the chicken.  It's a fact now.  One day, a chickens (hens and roosters) popped into existence.


This I don't get.  You're saying there is now proof that chickens lay eggs?  You might be the only one impressed by that finding.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who is really able to believe a structure, where every point is always in the middle of the universe, is not made from god with smiling eyes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the universe is bounded and not boundless like atheist scientists think.  There will be an end at some time.  This has been prophecized.  There is a true center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can support that with scientific evidence in the Bibles?
> 
> Perhaps some research from the Henry Morris college for the silly.
Click to expand...


The creation scientists did a peer-review paper on this.



Hollie said:


> The space time that we are aware of was created billions of years ago as the result of a major disturbance to matter and energy.
> 
> See? I have addressed your question multiple times.
> 
> We know who created your particular version of the gods. Why are your human invented versions of the gods to be accepted as opposed to other, human invented versions of gods? You keep avoiding answering that question.



That's no explanation and why you have little-to-no chance of success.  How did matter and energy exist if there was no spacetime and what caused the matter and energy?  It goes back to my original question of what caused spacetime.  Your life must be one of endless circular logic.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> The center is everywhere.



If the universe in bounded, then there is a center someplace.

"The solution of Einstein's field equations in Cosmological General Relativity (CGR), where the Galaxy is at the center of a finite yet bounded spherically symmetrical isotropic gravitational field, is identical with the unbounded solution."

Finite bounded expanding white hole universe without dark matter


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> You don't understand how fossils could falsify the ToE. The lack of a fossil proves nothing. If the ToE says tailed monkeys evolved into tailless monkeys (I have no idea if this is really true) and we find a fossil of a tailless monkey that is older than any occurrence of a tailed monkey that would falsify the theory.



You're making stuff up as we go along and we have established now that you do not understand common ancestor -- the tailed monkey became a tailless monkey in that chain.  Otherwise, you would have made a valid statement of falsification using fossil evidence.  If there are no fossils, then there is nothing to falsify.  

OTOH, I established that there are no transitional fossils to show tailed to tailless monkeys, so the theory has not evidence.  It's just an assumption in circular reasoning.



alang1216 said:


> I stand corrected, I didn't know that the primate lineage went back so far. I should have said that if an fossil ape were found with the dinos the ToE would be in trouble. And you're completely wrong about transitional fossils since EVERY fossil ever found is transitional.



The please show us the transitional tailed monkey to tailless one.  We do not even observe this happening with current monkeys today.



alang1216 said:


> This I don't get. You're saying there is now proof that chickens lay eggs? You might be the only one impressed by that finding.



Haha.  Look at the coating on the eggshell.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand how fossils could falsify the ToE. The lack of a fossil proves nothing. If the ToE says tailed monkeys evolved into tailless monkeys (I have no idea if this is really true) and we find a fossil of a tailless monkey that is older than any occurrence of a tailed monkey that would falsify the theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making stuff up as we go along and we have established now that you do not understand common ancestor -- the tailed monkey became a tailless monkey in that chain.  Otherwise, you would have made a valid statement of falsification using fossil evidence.  If there are no fossils, then there is nothing to falsify.
> 
> OTOH, I established that there are no transitional fossils to show tailed to tailless monkeys, so the theory has not evidence.  It's just an assumption in circular reasoning.
Click to expand...

You do realize that you're making up a scenario and asking me to prove it.  Lack of fossil evidence is just that, a lack of evidence, not a proof of anything.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> The creation scientists did a peer-review paper on this.


Shameless lie.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand how fossils could falsify the ToE. The lack of a fossil proves nothing. If the ToE says tailed monkeys evolved into tailless monkeys (I have no idea if this is really true) and we find a fossil of a tailless monkey that is older than any occurrence of a tailed monkey that would falsify the theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making stuff up as we go along and we have established now that you do not understand common ancestor -- the tailed monkey became a tailless monkey in that chain.  Otherwise, you would have made a valid statement of falsification using fossil evidence.  If there are no fossils, then there is nothing to falsify.
> 
> OTOH, I established that there are no transitional fossils to show tailed to tailless monkeys, so the theory has not evidence.  It's just an assumption in circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that you're making up a scenario and asking me to prove it.  Lack of fossil evidence is just that, a lack of evidence, not a proof of anything.
Click to expand...


Check your post #745.  You're the one who stated ToE is falsifiable but have not provided any evidence.  In order for common descent as part of tree of life to be true, there should be transitional evidence of tailed to tailless monkeys but there isn't any.  Clearly, it doesn't happen today.  To falsify your statement using this as an example, we have to show that it is valid first.  Like duh.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The creation scientists did a peer-review paper on this.
> 
> 
> 
> Shameless lie.
Click to expand...


Shameful ASS-ertion..


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who is really able to believe a structure, where every point is always in the middle of the universe, is not made from god with smiling eyes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the universe is bounded and not boundless like atheist scientists think.  There will be an end at some time.  This has been prophecized.  There is a true center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can support that with scientific evidence in the Bibles?
> 
> Perhaps some research from the Henry Morris college for the silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The creation scientists did a peer-review paper on this.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The space time that we are aware of was created billions of years ago as the result of a major disturbance to matter and energy.
> 
> See? I have addressed your question multiple times.
> 
> We know who created your particular version of the gods. Why are your human invented versions of the gods to be accepted as opposed to other, human invented versions of gods? You keep avoiding answering that question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's no explanation and why you have little-to-no chance of success.  How did matter and energy exist if there was no spacetime and what caused the matter and energy?  It goes back to my original question of what caused spacetime.  Your life must be one of endless circular logic.
Click to expand...

God didn't cause it.  That's the long and the short of it.

Whenever you claimed God must have caused this or that, you then have to answer the inevitable question:  what caused God?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand how fossils could falsify the ToE. The lack of a fossil proves nothing. If the ToE says tailed monkeys evolved into tailless monkeys (I have no idea if this is really true) and we find a fossil of a tailless monkey that is older than any occurrence of a tailed monkey that would falsify the theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making stuff up as we go along and we have established now that you do not understand common ancestor -- the tailed monkey became a tailless monkey in that chain.  Otherwise, you would have made a valid statement of falsification using fossil evidence.  If there are no fossils, then there is nothing to falsify.
> 
> OTOH, I established that there are no transitional fossils to show tailed to tailless monkeys, so the theory has not evidence.  It's just an assumption in circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that you're making up a scenario and asking me to prove it.  Lack of fossil evidence is just that, a lack of evidence, not a proof of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check your post #745.  You're the one who stated ToE is falsifiable but have not provided any evidence.  In order for common descent as part of tree of life to be true, there should be transitional evidence of tailed to tailless monkeys but there isn't any.  Clearly, it doesn't happen today.  To falsify your statement using this as an example, we have to show that it is valid first.  Like duh.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is pure horseshit.  The lack of a fossil for some evolutionary transition only proves that we haven't found such a fossil.  It proves nothing about the theory of evolution.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The creation scientists did a peer-review paper on this.
> 
> 
> 
> Shameless lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shameful ASS-ertion..
Click to expand...

You are a gross liar, and these fake creation scientists never published any peer-reviewed creation science.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who is really able to believe a structure, where every point is always in the middle of the universe, is not made from god with smiling eyes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the universe is bounded and not boundless like atheist scientists think.  There will be an end at some time.  This has been prophecized.  There is a true center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can support that with scientific evidence in the Bibles?
> 
> Perhaps some research from the Henry Morris college for the silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The creation scientists did a peer-review paper on this.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The space time that we are aware of was created billions of years ago as the result of a major disturbance to matter and energy.
> 
> See? I have addressed your question multiple times.
> 
> We know who created your particular version of the gods. Why are your human invented versions of the gods to be accepted as opposed to other, human invented versions of gods? You keep avoiding answering that question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's no explanation and why you have little-to-no chance of success.  How did matter and energy exist if there was no spacetime and what caused the matter and energy?  It goes back to my original question of what caused spacetime.  Your life must be one of endless circular logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God didn't cause it.  That's the long and the short of it.
> 
> Whenever you claimed God must have caused this or that, you then have to answer the inevitable question:  what caused God?
Click to expand...


Nothing caused God.  He's not like us nor things in the material world.  God is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, *timeless*, *spaceless*, unimaginably powerful, and personal.  An excellent explanation is below.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who is really able to believe a structure, where every point is always in the middle of the universe, is not made from god with smiling eyes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the universe is bounded and not boundless like atheist scientists think.  There will be an end at some time.  This has been prophecized.  There is a true center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can support that with scientific evidence in the Bibles?
> 
> Perhaps some research from the Henry Morris college for the silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The creation scientists did a peer-review paper on this.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The space time that we are aware of was created billions of years ago as the result of a major disturbance to matter and energy.
> 
> See? I have addressed your question multiple times.
> 
> We know who created your particular version of the gods. Why are your human invented versions of the gods to be accepted as opposed to other, human invented versions of gods? You keep avoiding answering that question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's no explanation and why you have little-to-no chance of success.  How did matter and energy exist if there was no spacetime and what caused the matter and energy?  It goes back to my original question of what caused spacetime.  Your life must be one of endless circular logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God didn't cause it.  That's the long and the short of it.
> 
> Whenever you claimed God must have caused this or that, you then have to answer the inevitable question:  what caused God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing caused God.  He's not like us nor things in the material world.  God is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, *timeless*, *spaceless*, unimaginably powerful, and personal.  An excellent explanation is below.
Click to expand...

If God doesn't require a cause, then how do you justify claiming the universe has to have a cause?


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> The lack of a fossil for some evolutionary transition only proves that we haven't found such a fossil. It proves nothing about the theory of evolution








Then there is a break or contradiction in ToE's tree of life and common ancestor and evolution did not happen.  You guys were just using "faith-based" science for common descent and how old the universe and Earth is.  I just debunked all of evolution.  What a loss for Charles Darwin!  Break open the champagne!!!


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The creation scientists did a peer-review paper on this.
> 
> 
> 
> Shameless lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shameful ASS-ertion..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a gross liar, and these fake creation scientists never published any peer-reviewed creation science.
Click to expand...


Why would I lie about that?  I even want the James Webb telescope to see what the find.  So far, it's been you who has lied about dinosaurs being reversed engineered from chickens and most everything else.  I can't even remember the last time you didn't lie.  Was there anything you said that turned out to be right?


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the universe is bounded and not boundless like atheist scientists think.  There will be an end at some time.  This has been prophecized.  There is a true center.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can support that with scientific evidence in the Bibles?
> 
> Perhaps some research from the Henry Morris college for the silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The creation scientists did a peer-review paper on this.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The space time that we are aware of was created billions of years ago as the result of a major disturbance to matter and energy.
> 
> See? I have addressed your question multiple times.
> 
> We know who created your particular version of the gods. Why are your human invented versions of the gods to be accepted as opposed to other, human invented versions of gods? You keep avoiding answering that question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's no explanation and why you have little-to-no chance of success.  How did matter and energy exist if there was no spacetime and what caused the matter and energy?  It goes back to my original question of what caused spacetime.  Your life must be one of endless circular logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God didn't cause it.  That's the long and the short of it.
> 
> Whenever you claimed God must have caused this or that, you then have to answer the inevitable question:  what caused God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing caused God.  He's not like us nor things in the material world.  God is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, *timeless*, *spaceless*, unimaginably powerful, and personal.  An excellent explanation is below.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If God doesn't require a cause, then how do you justify claiming the universe has to have a cause?
Click to expand...


Kalam's cosmological argument 1st statement --  Whatever begins to exist has to have a cause.  We have demonstrated that the universe began to exist.  Both sides agree on that.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can support that with scientific evidence in the Bibles?
> 
> Perhaps some research from the Henry Morris college for the silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The creation scientists did a peer-review paper on this.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The space time that we are aware of was created billions of years ago as the result of a major disturbance to matter and energy.
> 
> See? I have addressed your question multiple times.
> 
> We know who created your particular version of the gods. Why are your human invented versions of the gods to be accepted as opposed to other, human invented versions of gods? You keep avoiding answering that question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's no explanation and why you have little-to-no chance of success.  How did matter and energy exist if there was no spacetime and what caused the matter and energy?  It goes back to my original question of what caused spacetime.  Your life must be one of endless circular logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God didn't cause it.  That's the long and the short of it.
> 
> Whenever you claimed God must have caused this or that, you then have to answer the inevitable question:  what caused God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing caused God.  He's not like us nor things in the material world.  God is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, *timeless*, *spaceless*, unimaginably powerful, and personal.  An excellent explanation is below.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If God doesn't require a cause, then how do you justify claiming the universe has to have a cause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kalam's cosmological argument 1st statement --  Whatever begins to exist has to have a cause.  We have demonstrated that the universe began to exist.  Both sides agree on that.
Click to expand...

No, we actually haven't demonstrated that.  We don't know what existed before the big bang.  How do you know God existed before the big bang?  What does the word "before" even mean prior to the beginning of time?


----------



## ChesBayJJ

james bond said:


> Nothing caused God.  He's not like us nor things in the material world.  God is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, *timeless*, *spaceless*, unimaginably powerful, and personal.  An excellent explanation is below.



God is a creation of the mind of man.

Which one do you prefer?

Spiritual Beings and Deities - Featured Topics


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who is really able to believe a structure, where every point is always in the middle of the universe, is not made from god with smiling eyes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the universe is bounded and not boundless like atheist scientists think.  There will be an end at some time.  This has been prophecized.  There is a true center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can support that with scientific evidence in the Bibles?
> 
> Perhaps some research from the Henry Morris college for the silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The creation scientists did a peer-review paper on this.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The space time that we are aware of was created billions of years ago as the result of a major disturbance to matter and energy.
> 
> See? I have addressed your question multiple times.
> 
> We know who created your particular version of the gods. Why are your human invented versions of the gods to be accepted as opposed to other, human invented versions of gods? You keep avoiding answering that question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's no explanation and why you have little-to-no chance of success.  How did matter and energy exist if there was no spacetime and what caused the matter and energy?  It goes back to my original question of what caused spacetime.  Your life must be one of endless circular logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God didn't cause it.  That's the long and the short of it.
> 
> Whenever you claimed God must have caused this or that, you then have to answer the inevitable question:  what caused God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing caused God.  He's not like us nor things in the material world.  God is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, *timeless*, *spaceless*, unimaginably powerful, and personal.  An excellent explanation is below.
Click to expand...


That’s all very convenient to claim “nothing caused the gods”. However, it’s a rather childish attempt to shield yourself from any critique of your particular gods which we know were invented by men.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lack of a fossil for some evolutionary transition only proves that we haven't found such a fossil. It proves nothing about the theory of evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is a break or contradiction in ToE's tree of life and common ancestor and evolution did not happen.  You guys were just using "faith-based" science for common descent and how old the universe and Earth is.  I just debunked all of evolution.  What a loss for Charles Darwin!  Break open the champagne!!!
Click to expand...


Common descent with modification is an accepted and demonstrable part of biological science.

Evolution (common descent with modification) was not some idea that Darwin came up with out of thin air which he later searched for ways of proving. That is not how it happened. Rather he took all the then known facts/observations (gathered by other scientists of the time) and explained them in what today we would consider a scientific manner (a manner that was testable, not appealing to supernatural gods).

In the particular case of the fossil record, it was well known to geologists & paleontologists long before Darwin wrote _Origin of Species_ that there was a pattern of change in the fossil record; the farther back one went in the record there were more differences in the animals represented  vs. those alive today. It was also well known that there were fossils of animals that appeared to be intermediate in form between both various fossil groups and fossil and living groups.

Neither the pattern of the fossil record or the existence of intermediate fossil forms was considered controversial amongst the scientists of the time; they simply worked these facts into their framework. Darwin came up with an alternative explanation for these facts that did not rely on the supernatural. So the question is not what do intermediate forms in the fossil record (or the pattern of the fossil record) "prove", but rather how do we explain the existence of intermediate forms in the fossil record (and the pattern of fossil record)?


Similarly, we can go back through the many inventions of gods and find striking similarities to the fact of biological evolution and to how the human inventions of gods have evolved over time.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Why would I lie about that?


Because you are a pathological liar, when it comes to your silly iron age magical spells.

That's why you will never, not ever, post this non existent peer reviewed science.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> No, we actually haven't demonstrated that. We don't know what existed before the big bang. How do you know God existed before the big bang? What does the word "before" even mean prior to the beginning of time?



You haven't read the book, but I have.  It tells you who existed and there was no big bang.  That's all stuff made up by atheist scientists haha.  When are you ever going to learn?  All you guys do is DEFLECT, DENY, DISMISS and DESPAIR.  No wonder you end up spiritually dead.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we actually haven't demonstrated that. We don't know what existed before the big bang. How do you know God existed before the big bang? What does the word "before" even mean prior to the beginning of time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't read the book, but I have.  It tells you who existed and there was no big bang.  That's all stuff made up by atheist scientists haha.  When are you ever going to learn?  All you guys do is DEFLECT, DENY, DISMISS and DESPAIR.  No wonder you end up spiritually dead.
Click to expand...


Your conspiracy theories of "made up" science suggests the rantings of a seriously disturbed individual. Revulsion for knowledge and learning is not uncommon for the hyper-religious but to reject the knowledge that mankind has acquired since the West freed itself from the fear and ignorance imposed by the church during the Dark Ages is seriously concerning.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Check your post #745.  You're the one who stated ToE is falsifiable but have not provided any evidence.  In order for common descent as part of tree of life to be true, there should be transitional evidence of tailed to tailless monkeys but there isn't any.  Clearly, it doesn't happen today.  To falsify your statement using this as an example, we have to show that it is valid first.  Like duh.


The ToE *is* falsifiable.  The basis for the ToE is decent from a common ancestor.  So far every fossil ever found fits into the ToE.  Should a fossil be found that does not fit the ToE ,the ToE would be proven false.  Trillions of fossils have been found and NONE contradict the ToE.

Are there any studies of tailed/tailless monkeys or did you invent a strawman?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

alang1216 said:


> Are there any studies of tailed/tailless monkeys or did you invent a strawman?


He doesn't know. He's plagiarizing talking points from creation.com that he doesn't even understand.


----------



## WinterBorn

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can support that with scientific evidence in the Bibles?
> 
> Perhaps some research from the Henry Morris college for the silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The creation scientists did a peer-review paper on this.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The space time that we are aware of was created billions of years ago as the result of a major disturbance to matter and energy.
> 
> See? I have addressed your question multiple times.
> 
> We know who created your particular version of the gods. Why are your human invented versions of the gods to be accepted as opposed to other, human invented versions of gods? You keep avoiding answering that question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's no explanation and why you have little-to-no chance of success.  How did matter and energy exist if there was no spacetime and what caused the matter and energy?  It goes back to my original question of what caused spacetime.  Your life must be one of endless circular logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God didn't cause it.  That's the long and the short of it.
> 
> Whenever you claimed God must have caused this or that, you then have to answer the inevitable question:  what caused God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing caused God.  He's not like us nor things in the material world.  God is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, *timeless*, *spaceless*, unimaginably powerful, and personal.  An excellent explanation is below.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If God doesn't require a cause, then how do you justify claiming the universe has to have a cause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kalam's cosmological argument 1st statement --  Whatever begins to exist has to have a cause.  We have demonstrated that the universe began to exist.  Both sides agree on that.
Click to expand...


I have seen no evidence that the universe had a beginning.   Can you link to such evidence?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Check your post #745.  You're the one who stated ToE is falsifiable but have not provided any evidence.  In order for common descent as part of tree of life to be true, there should be transitional evidence of tailed to tailless monkeys but there isn't any.  Clearly, it doesn't happen today.  To falsify your statement using this as an example, we have to show that it is valid first.  Like duh.
> 
> 
> 
> The ToE *is* falsifiable.  The basis for the ToE is decent from a common ancestor.  So far every fossil ever found fits into the ToE.  Should a fossil be found that does not fit the ToE ,the ToE would be proven false.  Trillions of fossils have been found and NONE contradict the ToE.
> 
> Are there any studies of tailed/tailless monkeys or did you invent a strawman?
Click to expand...


You are the one arguing strawman.  I provided one example of no transitional fossils which disproves the ToE.  This is falsifiable with finding a transitional fossil.  Another would be no chimp-gorilla hybrids.  They do not mingle in the wild.  There are chimp hybrids and gorilla hybrids, but they are separate.  Again, the theory is falsifiable by finding a chimp-gorilla hybrid (which the researchers are trying to do).

The only falsifiable for ToE I can think of is chimp-humans or ape-humans based on Lucy and Ardi.  One could argue they were chimp hybrids or gorilla hybrids and not human.  Or they evolved into bears or something silly like that.  Bears are bipedal for short stretches of time and we found one bear that was bipedal all the time because of an injury.

Thus, your statement does not hold water unless you specify what you are referring to.  You do not appear to know what ToE is from the way you describe it .


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The creation scientists did a peer-review paper on this.
> 
> That's no explanation and why you have little-to-no chance of success.  How did matter and energy exist if there was no spacetime and what caused the matter and energy?  It goes back to my original question of what caused spacetime.  Your life must be one of endless circular logic.
> 
> 
> 
> God didn't cause it.  That's the long and the short of it.
> 
> Whenever you claimed God must have caused this or that, you then have to answer the inevitable question:  what caused God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing caused God.  He's not like us nor things in the material world.  God is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, *timeless*, *spaceless*, unimaginably powerful, and personal.  An excellent explanation is below.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If God doesn't require a cause, then how do you justify claiming the universe has to have a cause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kalam's cosmological argument 1st statement --  Whatever begins to exist has to have a cause.  We have demonstrated that the universe began to exist.  Both sides agree on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen no evidence that the universe had a beginning.   Can you link to such evidence?
Click to expand...


I'm taken aback coming from you since the answer is easy to find, i.e. creation scientists and secular scientists agree the universe had a beginning.  How do you think the universe started or do you believe that it is eternal?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Check your post #745.  You're the one who stated ToE is falsifiable but have not provided any evidence.  In order for common descent as part of tree of life to be true, there should be transitional evidence of tailed to tailless monkeys but there isn't any.  Clearly, it doesn't happen today.  To falsify your statement using this as an example, we have to show that it is valid first.  Like duh.
> 
> 
> 
> The ToE *is* falsifiable.  The basis for the ToE is decent from a common ancestor.  So far every fossil ever found fits into the ToE.  Should a fossil be found that does not fit the ToE ,the ToE would be proven false.  Trillions of fossils have been found and NONE contradict the ToE.
> 
> Are there any studies of tailed/tailless monkeys or did you invent a strawman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one arguing strawman.  I provided one example of no transitional fossils which disproves the ToE.  This is falsifiable with finding a transitional fossil.  Another would be no chimp-gorilla hybrids.  They do not mingle in the wild.  There are chimp hybrids and gorilla hybrids, but they are separate.  Again, the theory is falsifiable by finding a chimp-gorilla hybrid (which the researchers are trying to do).
> 
> The only falsifiable for ToE I can think of is chimp-humans or ape-humans based on Lucy and Ardi.  One could argue they were chimp hybrids or gorilla hybrids and not human.  Or they evolved into bears or something silly like that.  Bears are bipedal for short stretches of time and we found one bear that was bipedal all the time because of an injury.
> 
> Thus, your statement does not hold water unless you specify what you are referring to.  You do not appear to know what ToE is from the way you describe it .
Click to expand...

A lack of transitional fossils doesn't disprove the TOE.  All it proves is that you have a lack of transitional fossils.  Also, the TOE doesn't say there should be chimp-gorilla hybrids.

I don't know why you bother with this debate since you're so damn ignorant about science and the TOE.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God didn't cause it.  That's the long and the short of it.
> 
> Whenever you claimed God must have caused this or that, you then have to answer the inevitable question:  what caused God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing caused God.  He's not like us nor things in the material world.  God is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, *timeless*, *spaceless*, unimaginably powerful, and personal.  An excellent explanation is below.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If God doesn't require a cause, then how do you justify claiming the universe has to have a cause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kalam's cosmological argument 1st statement --  Whatever begins to exist has to have a cause.  We have demonstrated that the universe began to exist.  Both sides agree on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen no evidence that the universe had a beginning.   Can you link to such evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm taken aback coming from you since the answer is easy to find, i.e. creation scientists and secular scientists agree the universe had a beginning.  How do you think the universe started or do you believe that it is eternal?
Click to expand...

Some secular scientists say the universe had a Big Bang.  That don't claim that was the absolute beginning of the universe.  They all acknowledge that something may have come before the Big Bang.

Many other secular scientists are starting to warm up to the theory of the multiverse.  There is a number of new theories out there, so your obsession with the Big Bang is not a good argument.


----------



## WinterBorn

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God didn't cause it.  That's the long and the short of it.
> 
> Whenever you claimed God must have caused this or that, you then have to answer the inevitable question:  what caused God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing caused God.  He's not like us nor things in the material world.  God is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, *timeless*, *spaceless*, unimaginably powerful, and personal.  An excellent explanation is below.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If God doesn't require a cause, then how do you justify claiming the universe has to have a cause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kalam's cosmological argument 1st statement --  Whatever begins to exist has to have a cause.  We have demonstrated that the universe began to exist.  Both sides agree on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen no evidence that the universe had a beginning.   Can you link to such evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm taken aback coming from you since the answer is easy to find, i.e. creation scientists and secular scientists agree the universe had a beginning.  How do you think the universe started or do you believe that it is eternal?
Click to expand...


Belief is not the issue.  It is about science.  No one in the scientific community, that I have seen, claims the universe was created in the Big Bang.   There was matter and energy before the Big Bang.   All of the matter in the known universe is moving outward from the center of the bang.   It was not created by the bang.  It was sent flying outward by the bang.


----------



## WinterBorn

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God didn't cause it.  That's the long and the short of it.
> 
> Whenever you claimed God must have caused this or that, you then have to answer the inevitable question:  what caused God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing caused God.  He's not like us nor things in the material world.  God is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, *timeless*, *spaceless*, unimaginably powerful, and personal.  An excellent explanation is below.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If God doesn't require a cause, then how do you justify claiming the universe has to have a cause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kalam's cosmological argument 1st statement --  Whatever begins to exist has to have a cause.  We have demonstrated that the universe began to exist.  Both sides agree on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen no evidence that the universe had a beginning.   Can you link to such evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm taken aback coming from you since the answer is easy to find, i.e. creation scientists and secular scientists agree the universe had a beginning.  How do you think the universe started or do you believe that it is eternal?
Click to expand...


Easy to find?   Yes it is.

from:   Big Bang - Wikipedia
"The model describes how *the universe **expanded** from a very high-density and high-temperature state*,[7][8] and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB), large scale structure and Hubble's law (the farther away galaxies are, the faster they are moving away from Earth)"   (the *Bold* and underline is mine)

The universe expanded.  It was very dense.  It had a very high temperature.    That means it was not created, but changed.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> A lack of transitional fossils doesn't disprove the TOE. All it proves is that you have a lack of transitional fossils. Also, the TOE doesn't say there should be chimp-gorilla hybrids.



I'm not ingnorant.  You are, and dumb to boot bripat9643.  Otherwise, the fossil evidence is lacking and we should not assume that humans came from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs.  Due to ToE stating tree of life, common ancestor and long-time, there should be evidence for ALL the transitions.  Instead, creation scientists and I are finding contradictions.  It just goes to show that secular (atheist) scientists fit the facts to their ToE theory.  It is circular logic and a logic error.  Furthermore, I stated that we do not see it happen today with our monkeys and trying to reverse engineer chickens.  Neither can it be demonstrated via experiment.

As for chimp and gorillas, ToE says that gorillas begat chimps.  How did that happen?  What change caused that?  We have no fossil evidence.  Moreover, how can it be when they do not mate?  Thus, there are no chimp-gorilla hybrids as we expect to find and there are none.  The evo researchers keep looking tho.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing caused God.  He's not like us nor things in the material world.  God is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, *timeless*, *spaceless*, unimaginably powerful, and personal.  An excellent explanation is below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If God doesn't require a cause, then how do you justify claiming the universe has to have a cause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kalam's cosmological argument 1st statement --  Whatever begins to exist has to have a cause.  We have demonstrated that the universe began to exist.  Both sides agree on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen no evidence that the universe had a beginning.   Can you link to such evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm taken aback coming from you since the answer is easy to find, i.e. creation scientists and secular scientists agree the universe had a beginning.  How do you think the universe started or do you believe that it is eternal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some secular scientists say the universe had a Big Bang.  That don't claim that was the absolute beginning of the universe.  They all acknowledge that something may have come before the Big Bang.
> 
> Many other secular scientists are starting to warm up to the theory of the multiverse.  There is a number of new theories out there, so your obsession with the Big Bang is not a good argument.
Click to expand...


Why would I argue for big bang when I have creation haha?  Like I said, you cannot figure things out to put it nicely.


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing caused God.  He's not like us nor things in the material world.  God is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, *timeless*, *spaceless*, unimaginably powerful, and personal.  An excellent explanation is below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If God doesn't require a cause, then how do you justify claiming the universe has to have a cause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kalam's cosmological argument 1st statement --  Whatever begins to exist has to have a cause.  We have demonstrated that the universe began to exist.  Both sides agree on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen no evidence that the universe had a beginning.   Can you link to such evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm taken aback coming from you since the answer is easy to find, i.e. creation scientists and secular scientists agree the universe had a beginning.  How do you think the universe started or do you believe that it is eternal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy to find?   Yes it is.
> 
> from:   Big Bang - Wikipedia
> "The model describes how *the universe **expanded** from a very high-density and high-temperature state*,[7][8] and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB), large scale structure and Hubble's law (the farther away galaxies are, the faster they are moving away from Earth)"   (the *Bold* and underline is mine)
> 
> The universe expanded.  It was very dense.  It had a very high temperature.    That means it was not created, but changed.
Click to expand...


That's not what Stephen Hawking said.  Singularity was described as infinite temperature and infinite density.  Then in the microseconds after that, we had cosmic inflation as stated by Alan Guth.  Of course, both are impossible in the material world.  Moreover, it requires spacetime.  Where did that come from?

You didn't answer my question.  How do you think the universe started or do you believe that it is eternal?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lack of transitional fossils doesn't disprove the TOE. All it proves is that you have a lack of transitional fossils. Also, the TOE doesn't say there should be chimp-gorilla hybrids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not ingnorant.  You are, and dumb to boot bripat9643.  Otherwise, the fossil evidence is lacking and we should not assume that humans came from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs.  Due to ToE stating tree of life, common ancestor and long-time, there should be evidence for ALL the transitions.  Instead, creation scientists and I are finding contradictions.  It just goes to show that secular (atheist) scientists fit the facts to their ToE theory.  It is circular logic and a logic error.  Furthermore, I stated that we do not see it happen today with our monkeys and trying to reverse engineer chickens.  Neither can it be demonstrated via experiment.
> 
> As for chimp and gorillas, ToE says that gorillas begat chimps.  How did that happen?  What change caused that?  We have no fossil evidence.  Moreover, how can it be when they do not mate?  Thus, there are no chimp-gorilla hybrids as we expect to find and there are none.  The evo researchers keep looking tho.
Click to expand...


Humans didn’t “ come from monkeys”. That’s a typically ignorant canard you cut and paste from the fundie cranks at creation.com.

You should understand that when you don’t have the first clue as to the subject matter you rail against, such ignorant statements make the rest of your commentary just useless noise.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God doesn't require a cause, then how do you justify claiming the universe has to have a cause?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam's cosmological argument 1st statement --  Whatever begins to exist has to have a cause.  We have demonstrated that the universe began to exist.  Both sides agree on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen no evidence that the universe had a beginning.   Can you link to such evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm taken aback coming from you since the answer is easy to find, i.e. creation scientists and secular scientists agree the universe had a beginning.  How do you think the universe started or do you believe that it is eternal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy to find?   Yes it is.
> 
> from:   Big Bang - Wikipedia
> "The model describes how *the universe **expanded** from a very high-density and high-temperature state*,[7][8] and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB), large scale structure and Hubble's law (the farther away galaxies are, the faster they are moving away from Earth)"   (the *Bold* and underline is mine)
> 
> The universe expanded.  It was very dense.  It had a very high temperature.    That means it was not created, but changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what Stephen Hawking said.  Singularity was described as infinite temperature and infinite density.  Then in the microseconds after that, we had cosmic inflation as stated by Alan Guth.  Of course, both are impossible in the material world.  Moreover, it requires spacetime.  Where did that come from?
> 
> You didn't answer my question.  How do you think the universe started or do you believe that it is eternal?
Click to expand...




james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God doesn't require a cause, then how do you justify claiming the universe has to have a cause?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam's cosmological argument 1st statement --  Whatever begins to exist has to have a cause.  We have demonstrated that the universe began to exist.  Both sides agree on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen no evidence that the universe had a beginning.   Can you link to such evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm taken aback coming from you since the answer is easy to find, i.e. creation scientists and secular scientists agree the universe had a beginning.  How do you think the universe started or do you believe that it is eternal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some secular scientists say the universe had a Big Bang.  That don't claim that was the absolute beginning of the universe.  They all acknowledge that something may have come before the Big Bang.
> 
> Many other secular scientists are starting to warm up to the theory of the multiverse.  There is a number of new theories out there, so your obsession with the Big Bang is not a good argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I argue for big bang when I have creation haha?  Like I said, you cannot figure things out to put it nicely.
Click to expand...


There is no reason for anyone to blindly accept your claims to supernatural creation when supernaturalism is entirely absent in the natural world.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lack of transitional fossils doesn't disprove the TOE. All it proves is that you have a lack of transitional fossils. Also, the TOE doesn't say there should be chimp-gorilla hybrids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not ingnorant.  You are, and dumb to boot bripat9643.  Otherwise, the fossil evidence is lacking and we should not assume that humans came from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs.  Due to ToE stating tree of life, common ancestor and long-time, there should be evidence for ALL the transitions.  Instead, creation scientists and I are finding contradictions.  It just goes to show that secular (atheist) scientists fit the facts to their ToE theory.  It is circular logic and a logic error.  Furthermore, I stated that we do not see it happen today with our monkeys and trying to reverse engineer chickens.  Neither can it be demonstrated via experiment.
> 
> As for chimp and gorillas, ToE says that gorillas begat chimps.  How did that happen?  What change caused that?  We have no fossil evidence.  Moreover, how can it be when they do not mate?  Thus, there are no chimp-gorilla hybrids as we expect to find and there are none.  The evo researchers keep looking tho.
Click to expand...


The hyper-religious are not finding evidence of anything.

You are free to counter that statement by presenting “findings” made by any of the fundamentalist ministries which they have presented for peer review.

It should be a simple matter to provide a link to the journal _Nature, _for example, where creation.com has submitted a detailed account of their “findings” that support magic as the cause of existence.

How about an article that examines a 600 year old Noah.

How about a gene study that identifies the affects of Noah and his immediate family being left to repopulate the world. Would the charlatans at creation.com like to opine on your gods allowance for incestuous and familial relations?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Otherwise, the fossil evidence is lacking


Says no qualified scientist on the planet. Bond, you are embarrassing yourself, you colossal fraud. I have told you many times to stop this idiotic dog and pony show, and just admit that your beliefs are purely faith based. Instead, you lie and cheat and plagiarize, while knowing less than nothing factual about this material. You say things that would make a 6th grader cringe, and that would make a 10th grader laugh your dumb ass out of the room.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> I'm not ingnorant.
> 
> As for chimp and gorillas, ToE says that gorillas begat chimps.  How did that happen?  What change caused that?  We have no fossil evidence.  Moreover, how can it be when they do not mate?  Thus, there are no chimp-gorilla hybrids as we expect to find and there are none.  The evo researchers keep looking tho.


You are ignorant, at least of the ToE since the ToE says that gorillas did *NOT *beget chimps, only that they share a COMMON ANCESTOR.  And that is why evo researchers would never look for one.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lack of transitional fossils doesn't disprove the TOE. All it proves is that you have a lack of transitional fossils. Also, the TOE doesn't say there should be chimp-gorilla hybrids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not ingnorant.  You are, and dumb to boot bripat9643.  Otherwise, the fossil evidence is lacking and we should not assume that humans came from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs.  Due to ToE stating tree of life, common ancestor and long-time, there should be evidence for ALL the transitions.  Instead, creation scientists and I are finding contradictions.  It just goes to show that secular (atheist) scientists fit the facts to their ToE theory.  It is circular logic and a logic error.  Furthermore, I stated that we do not see it happen today with our monkeys and trying to reverse engineer chickens.  Neither can it be demonstrated via experiment.
> 
> As for chimp and gorillas, ToE says that gorillas begat chimps.  How did that happen?  What change caused that?  We have no fossil evidence.  Moreover, how can it be when they do not mate?  Thus, there are no chimp-gorilla hybrids as we expect to find and there are none.  The evo researchers keep looking tho.
Click to expand...

We don't assume anything.  We know it.  

The only thing a lack of fossils proves is that we have a lack of fossils. The idea that we should have a complete fossil record is idiotic.  The lack of one sure as hell doesn't prove the Bible theory of creation.

The rest of your post is unintelligible gibberish.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God doesn't require a cause, then how do you justify claiming the universe has to have a cause?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam's cosmological argument 1st statement --  Whatever begins to exist has to have a cause.  We have demonstrated that the universe began to exist.  Both sides agree on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen no evidence that the universe had a beginning.   Can you link to such evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm taken aback coming from you since the answer is easy to find, i.e. creation scientists and secular scientists agree the universe had a beginning.  How do you think the universe started or do you believe that it is eternal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some secular scientists say the universe had a Big Bang.  That don't claim that was the absolute beginning of the universe.  They all acknowledge that something may have come before the Big Bang.
> 
> Many other secular scientists are starting to warm up to the theory of the multiverse.  There is a number of new theories out there, so your obsession with the Big Bang is not a good argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I argue for big bang when I have creation haha?  Like I said, you cannot figure things out to put it nicely.
Click to expand...


When you quote the Bible, you aren't arguing anything.  You're retreating into mysticism.  You have abandoned the playing field.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not ingnorant.
> 
> As for chimp and gorillas, ToE says that gorillas begat chimps.  How did that happen?  What change caused that?  We have no fossil evidence.  Moreover, how can it be when they do not mate?  Thus, there are no chimp-gorilla hybrids as we expect to find and there are none.  The evo researchers keep looking tho.
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignorant, at least of the ToE since the ToE says that gorillas did *NOT *beget chimps, only that they share a COMMON ANCESTOR.  And that is why evo researchers would never look for one.
Click to expand...


You are so wrong.  These are common ancestors.  Look it up.  ToE is the dumb theory that you believe in.  I'm not going to teach you ToE, stupie.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lack of transitional fossils doesn't disprove the TOE. All it proves is that you have a lack of transitional fossils. Also, the TOE doesn't say there should be chimp-gorilla hybrids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not ingnorant.  You are, and dumb to boot bripat9643.  Otherwise, the fossil evidence is lacking and we should not assume that humans came from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs.  Due to ToE stating tree of life, common ancestor and long-time, there should be evidence for ALL the transitions.  Instead, creation scientists and I are finding contradictions.  It just goes to show that secular (atheist) scientists fit the facts to their ToE theory.  It is circular logic and a logic error.  Furthermore, I stated that we do not see it happen today with our monkeys and trying to reverse engineer chickens.  Neither can it be demonstrated via experiment.
> 
> As for chimp and gorillas, ToE says that gorillas begat chimps.  How did that happen?  What change caused that?  We have no fossil evidence.  Moreover, how can it be when they do not mate?  Thus, there are no chimp-gorilla hybrids as we expect to find and there are none.  The evo researchers keep looking tho.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't assume anything.  We know it.
> 
> The only thing a lack of fossils proves is that we have a lack of fossils. The idea that we should have a complete fossil record is idiotic.  The lack of one sure as hell doesn't prove the Bible theory of creation.
> 
> The rest of your post is unintelligible gibberish.
Click to expand...


If you know it, then why can't you answer my questions?  It shows you do not know.

The fossils are also found in layers.  The names of these layers do not have anything to do with time.  They are not chronological.  They name locations.

You do not even have a valid argument.  So far, I presented the evidence of no transitional fossils, and you agreed.  Thus, it is likely that Lucy and Ardi were not transitional.  They were chimps or apes.  It is hilarious that you are the one who brought up fossil evidence and I turned the tables on you and demonstrated no transitional fossils and you agreed.  Thus, evolution did not happen.  To the contrary, the fossil evidence that YOU brought up, just completed my argument and you agreed.


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing caused God.  He's not like us nor things in the material world.  God is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, *timeless*, *spaceless*, unimaginably powerful, and personal.  An excellent explanation is below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If God doesn't require a cause, then how do you justify claiming the universe has to have a cause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kalam's cosmological argument 1st statement --  Whatever begins to exist has to have a cause.  We have demonstrated that the universe began to exist.  Both sides agree on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen no evidence that the universe had a beginning.   Can you link to such evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm taken aback coming from you since the answer is easy to find, i.e. creation scientists and secular scientists agree the universe had a beginning.  How do you think the universe started or do you believe that it is eternal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Belief is not the issue.  It is about science.  No one in the scientific community, that I have seen, claims the universe was created in the Big Bang.   There was matter and energy before the Big Bang.   All of the matter in the known universe is moving outward from the center of the bang.   It was not created by the bang.  It was sent flying outward by the bang.
Click to expand...


So you deny science states the BB created the universe?  Can you provide some links where you get this?  I want to see where you get your BELIEFS.

Your first sentence is wrong.  Science is about best theories and thus it is all about beliefs.  It is about the search for the truth, but it's not final unless it is observable, testable and falsifiable or becomes a scientific fact.  Even then scientists do not believe it so.  We have crazy people who believe that laws of physics or laws of thermodynamics did not apply at some points in time without any evidence whatsoever.  They believe in multiverses without one shred of evidence.  These are supposedly the top secular/atheist scientists.

This is not science, but faith-based beliefs.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam's cosmological argument 1st statement --  Whatever begins to exist has to have a cause.  We have demonstrated that the universe began to exist.  Both sides agree on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen no evidence that the universe had a beginning.   Can you link to such evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm taken aback coming from you since the answer is easy to find, i.e. creation scientists and secular scientists agree the universe had a beginning.  How do you think the universe started or do you believe that it is eternal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some secular scientists say the universe had a Big Bang.  That don't claim that was the absolute beginning of the universe.  They all acknowledge that something may have come before the Big Bang.
> 
> Many other secular scientists are starting to warm up to the theory of the multiverse.  There is a number of new theories out there, so your obsession with the Big Bang is not a good argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I argue for big bang when I have creation haha?  Like I said, you cannot figure things out to put it nicely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you quote the Bible, you aren't arguing anything.  You're retreating into mysticism.  You have abandoned the playing field.
Click to expand...


I didn't quote the Bible in my arguments to you above, but the topic is "Science Proves the Bible Again."  Shouldn't I be allowed to quote the Bible for such a topic?

It just goes to show you are making up lies up based on your stereotypes of creationists and creation science.  Creation is what scientists believed as true before the 1850s.  It is still true and best theory.

Regarding mysticism, isn't evolution just that?  We didn't find any conclusive fossil evidence based on what you explained of it.  If it were real evidence, then wouldn't you be able to persuade me easily?  Instead, you just end up crying stating that I am espousing mysticism and have left the playing field.  It sounds like you never arrived on the field as you didn't produce any valid argument nor convince anybody of transitional fossils nor produce any unrefutable fossil evidence.

Now, you're trying to get involved in big bang or trying to refute Kalam's cosmological argument.  What do you have to say about that haha?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen no evidence that the universe had a beginning.   Can you link to such evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm taken aback coming from you since the answer is easy to find, i.e. creation scientists and secular scientists agree the universe had a beginning.  How do you think the universe started or do you believe that it is eternal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some secular scientists say the universe had a Big Bang.  That don't claim that was the absolute beginning of the universe.  They all acknowledge that something may have come before the Big Bang.
> 
> Many other secular scientists are starting to warm up to the theory of the multiverse.  There is a number of new theories out there, so your obsession with the Big Bang is not a good argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I argue for big bang when I have creation haha?  Like I said, you cannot figure things out to put it nicely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you quote the Bible, you aren't arguing anything.  You're retreating into mysticism.  You have abandoned the playing field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't quote the Bible in my arguments to you above, but the topic is "Science Proves the Bible Again."  Shouldn't I be allowed to quote the Bible for such a topic?
> 
> It just goes to show you are making up lies up based on your stereotypes of creationists and creation science.  Creation is what scientists believed as true before the 1850s.  It is still true and best theory.
> 
> Regarding mysticism, isn't evolution just that?  We didn't find any conclusive fossil evidence based on what you explained of it.  If it were real evidence, then wouldn't you be able to persuade me easily?  Instead, you just end up crying stating that I am espousing mysticism and have left the playing field.  It sounds like you never arrived on the field as you didn't produce any valid argument nor convince anybody of transitional fossils nor produce any unrefutable fossil evidence.
> 
> Now, you're trying to get involved in big bang or trying to refute Kalam's cosmological argument.  What do you have to say about that haha?
Click to expand...


Before 1850, there was still some lingering doubt among religious zealots about heliocentricsm. That’s still true today proving the Darwinian theory of fitness for survival.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not ingnorant.
> 
> As for chimp and gorillas, ToE says that gorillas begat chimps.  How did that happen?  What change caused that?  We have no fossil evidence.  Moreover, how can it be when they do not mate?  Thus, there are no chimp-gorilla hybrids as we expect to find and there are none.  The evo researchers keep looking tho.
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignorant, at least of the ToE since the ToE says that gorillas did *NOT *beget chimps, only that they share a COMMON ANCESTOR.  And that is why evo researchers would never look for one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so wrong.  These are common ancestors.  Look it up.  ToE is the dumb theory that you believe in.  I'm not going to teach you ToE, stupie.
Click to expand...


Thank you for not bludgeoning the board by teaching the religious zealots version of science. Rattling bones isn’t bad but burning people at the stake and snake handling get a bit messy.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignorant, at least of the ToE since the ToE says that gorillas did *NOT *beget chimps, only that they share a COMMON ANCESTOR.  And that is why evo researchers would never look for one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so wrong.  These are common ancestors.  Look it up.  ToE is the dumb theory that you believe in.  I'm not going to teach you ToE, stupie.
Click to expand...

I don't have to look it up, I know it is NOT what the ToE says and I know you can't show otherwise.
ToE is the theory you know nothing about so obviously you're not going to teach anyone about it.

Seriously, are you just having fun with us or are you really this dense?


----------



## zaangalewa

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignorant, at least of the ToE since the ToE says that gorillas did *NOT *beget chimps, only that they share a COMMON ANCESTOR.  And that is why evo researchers would never look for one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so wrong.  These are common ancestors.  Look it up.  ToE is the dumb theory that you believe in.  I'm not going to teach you ToE, stupie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to look it up, I know it is NOT what the ToE says
Click to expand...


And how explains the theory of evolution why two members of an intelligent species, which needed about 13.8 billion of years to evolve, are not able to understand each other and do not try to find out what are the real reasons for their misunderstandings? Perhaps that god only trained, when he made Adam and his sons, while Eve and her daughters are much more powerful intellectual communicators with a wider horizon and a greater verbal spectrum than only to make a war with words in all kinds of possible nonsense?



> and I know you can't show otherwise.
> ToE is the theory you know nothing about so obviously you're not going to teach anyone about it.
> 
> Seriously, are you just having fun with us or are you really this dense?



Fun? ... Ah fun - unfortunatelly fun was in carneval - now is a fasting period - before Easter will come. Then fun will start again.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignorant, at least of the ToE since the ToE says that gorillas did *NOT *beget chimps, only that they share a COMMON ANCESTOR.  And that is why evo researchers would never look for one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so wrong.  These are common ancestors.  Look it up.  ToE is the dumb theory that you believe in.  I'm not going to teach you ToE, stupie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to look it up, I know it is NOT what the ToE says and I know you can't show otherwise.
> ToE is the theory you know nothing about so obviously you're not going to teach anyone about it.
> 
> Seriously, are you just having fun with us or are you really this dense?
Click to expand...


Again, you are wrong.  You are wrong and don't know your own ToE.  Anyway, I am glad this is out in the open now.  The "common ancestor" is the low brow internet atheist's answer when they cannot describe or are capable of describing what the common ancestor looks like (no agreement), if there is a name for such creature nor have an understanding of how the common ancestor came down to make up the tree of life.  You and your answers are easily disposed.


----------



## james bond

The correct answer is here.

We do not see tailed monkeys become tailless ones today.  Nor do we see gorillas become chimps.  Easiest and fastest way is by sexual reproduction or hybridization.  I'm not sure how the DNA route works from gorillas to chimpanzees as I am not aware of anyone being able to change the DNA in order to effect the change.  I think it was "assumed" that gorillas were common ancestors of chimps because there was a chimp hybrid with the facial features and skull that resembled a gorilla.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignorant, at least of the ToE since the ToE says that gorillas did *NOT *beget chimps, only that they share a COMMON ANCESTOR.  And that is why evo researchers would never look for one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so wrong.  These are common ancestors.  Look it up.  ToE is the dumb theory that you believe in.  I'm not going to teach you ToE, stupie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to look it up, I know it is NOT what the ToE says and I know you can't show otherwise.
> ToE is the theory you know nothing about so obviously you're not going to teach anyone about it.
> 
> Seriously, are you just having fun with us or are you really this dense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you are wrong.  You are wrong and don't know your own ToE.  Anyway, I am glad this is out in the open now.  The "common ancestor" is the low brow internet atheist's answer when they cannot describe or are capable of describing what the common ancestor looks like (no agreement), if there is a name for such creature nor have an understanding of how the common ancestor came down to make up the tree of life.  You and your answers are easily disposed.
Click to expand...

Meet Ardi.  Small brain, upright stance.  Like no living ape or human.  Possible common ancestor of the various species of  homo.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignorant, at least of the ToE since the ToE says that gorillas did *NOT *beget chimps, only that they share a COMMON ANCESTOR.  And that is why evo researchers would never look for one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so wrong.  These are common ancestors.  Look it up.  ToE is the dumb theory that you believe in.  I'm not going to teach you ToE, stupie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to look it up, I know it is NOT what the ToE says and I know you can't show otherwise.
> ToE is the theory you know nothing about so obviously you're not going to teach anyone about it.
> 
> Seriously, are you just having fun with us or are you really this dense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you are wrong.  You are wrong and don't know your own ToE.  Anyway, I am glad this is out in the open now.  The "common ancestor" is the low brow internet atheist's answer when they cannot describe or are capable of describing what the common ancestor looks like (no agreement), if there is a name for such creature nor have an understanding of how the common ancestor came down to make up the tree of life.  You and your answers are easily disposed.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meet Ardi.  Small brain, upright stance.  Like no living ape or human.  Possible common ancestor of the various species of  homo.
Click to expand...


You should have produced stuff earlier and had the explanations.  All you are doing is riffing off the creation science poster.  

If you get several paleontologists to describe how Ardi looked, then they would come up with different looks.  The man who put both Lucy together and was on the team that discovered Ardi believes apes evolved from humans.  So your artist's sketch is one to make him bipedal and look human to fit humans evolved from monkeys.  The contradiction is tailed monkeys did not become tailless ones.  There are so many contradictions and holes in macroevolution that it's worthless.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I'm not going to teach you ToE,


You sure aren't, because you know less than nothing about it. All of your talking points are plagiarized, and you don't understand any of them. You constantly say factually incorrect things about evolution.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

alang1216 said:


> Seriously, are you just having fun with us or are you really this dense?


He is really this stupid.


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Yes indeed the bible tells us what is history and what are the universal laws


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The correct answer is here.
> 
> We do not see tailed monkeys become tailless ones today.  Nor do we see gorillas become chimps.  Easiest and fastest way is by sexual reproduction or hybridization.  I'm not sure how the DNA route works from gorillas to chimpanzees as I am not aware of anyone being able to change the DNA in order to effect the change.  I think it was "assumed" that gorillas were common ancestors of chimps because there was a chimp hybrid with the facial features and skull that resembled a gorilla.




You have once again demonstrated your complete ignorance regarding the subject matter you rail against. 

Your pointless cutting and pasting of cartoons you steal from creation.com merely make you an accomplice to stupidity.

You could troll a science site and get a well documented evolutionary history of what became the modern day horse. Of course _Eohippus _remained _Eohippus_, because once it evolved into a different genus, it was no longer _Eohippus_. The family tree of _Equus _evolution has been bolstered and enhanced with more fossils and fossil species. Rather than being the simplistic straight line of _Eohippus _(_Hyracotherium_) to _Mesohippus _to _Merychippus _to _Pliohippus _to _Equus_, horse evolution has proven to be a rather diverse splitting bush with many different twigs and branches. 

In other words, it has been *improved *and *enhanced*, because we now know vastly more about horse evolution than we did when the first powerful evidence was published decades ago. 

This is no different from the way our understanding of human evolution has grown and improved. It is fascinating to notice that creationists make much of the way our understanding of our own ancestry has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. 

And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there *shouldn’t be *any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation. 

Like the horse, human evolution has proven to be not a straight line from ape-like to human, but a diverse splitting bush with many different twigs and branches. It has many dead ends populated by rather odd humans such as Neandertal, or hominids such as _Australopithecus robustus_. 

But what it is *NOT *missing are transitional forms, many of them squarely intermediate between ape-like and man. 


Here's a ball. Go play in the street. Demonstrate the Darwinian theory of fitness for survival.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignorant, at least of the ToE since the ToE says that gorillas did *NOT *beget chimps, only that they share a COMMON ANCESTOR.  And that is why evo researchers would never look for one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so wrong.  These are common ancestors.  Look it up.  ToE is the dumb theory that you believe in.  I'm not going to teach you ToE, stupie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to look it up, I know it is NOT what the ToE says and I know you can't show otherwise.
> ToE is the theory you know nothing about so obviously you're not going to teach anyone about it.
> 
> Seriously, are you just having fun with us or are you really this dense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you are wrong.  You are wrong and don't know your own ToE.  Anyway, I am glad this is out in the open now.  The "common ancestor" is the low brow internet atheist's answer when they cannot describe or are capable of describing what the common ancestor looks like (no agreement), if there is a name for such creature nor have an understanding of how the common ancestor came down to make up the tree of life.  You and your answers are easily disposed.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meet Ardi.  Small brain, upright stance.  Like no living ape or human.  Possible common ancestor of the various species of  homo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should have produced stuff earlier and had the explanations.  All you are doing is riffing off the creation science poster.
> 
> If you get several paleontologists to describe how Ardi looked, then they would come up with different looks.  The man who put both Lucy together and was on the team that discovered Ardi believes apes evolved from humans.  So your artist's sketch is one to make him bipedal and look human to fit humans evolved from monkeys.  The contradiction is tailed monkeys did not become tailless ones.  There are so many contradictions and holes in macroevolution that it's worthless.
Click to expand...


Then explain the macroevolution of a Middle Eastern guy named jesus evolving into a tall, fair-skinned, fair-haired, Caucasian guy for his western audience. 

The jeebus was made in the image of westerners.


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The correct answer is here.
> 
> We do not see tailed monkeys become tailless ones today.  Nor do we see gorillas become chimps.  Easiest and fastest way is by sexual reproduction or hybridization.  I'm not sure how the DNA route works from gorillas to chimpanzees as I am not aware of anyone being able to change the DNA in order to effect the change.  I think it was "assumed" that gorillas were common ancestors of chimps because there was a chimp hybrid with the facial features and skull that resembled a gorilla.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have once again demonstrated your complete ignorance regarding the subject matter you rail against.
> 
> Your pointless cutting and pasting of cartoons you steal from creation.com merely make you an accomplice to stupidity.
> 
> You could troll a science site and get a well documented evolutionary history of what became the modern day horse. Of course _Eohippus _remained _Eohippus_, because once it evolved into a different genus, it was no longer _Eohippus_. The family tree of _Equus _evolution has been bolstered and enhanced with more fossils and fossil species. Rather than being the simplistic straight line of _Eohippus _(_Hyracotherium_) to _Mesohippus _to _Merychippus _to _Pliohippus _to _Equus_, horse evolution has proven to be a rather diverse splitting bush with many different twigs and branches.
> 
> In other words, it has been *improved *and *enhanced*, because we now know vastly more about horse evolution than we did when the first powerful evidence was published decades ago.
> 
> This is no different from the way our understanding of human evolution has grown and improved. It is fascinating to notice that creationists make much of the way our understanding of our own ancestry has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence.
> 
> And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there *shouldn’t be *any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.
> 
> Like the horse, human evolution has proven to be not a straight line from ape-like to human, but a diverse splitting bush with many different twigs and branches. It has many dead ends populated by rather odd humans such as Neandertal, or hominids such as _Australopithecus robustus_.
> 
> But what it is *NOT *missing are transitional forms, many of them squarely intermediate between ape-like and man.
> 
> 
> Here's a ball. Go play in the street. Demonstrate the Darwinian theory of fitness for survival.
Click to expand...


Wrong dead wrong

All animals mutate their genes when under pressure to help stop that pressure 

All but 1

The evolution pressure works with all the trillions of life forms but totally stops with humans

No life form out of trillions has mutated their genes to stop humans pressure on them

The lion went from totally dominating a human to totally being dominated by a human 


The big error is the similarity of apes to man.  What makes that similarity is the 

TIMELINE. 

The creator had just finished the ape and all the creations before the creator used the similar thinking that created the ape to now create HIS plan

Humans to then become gods of the universe as we move forward 

How fast has apes advanced??

See a totally different design 

Humans were his last creation proving all the other creating was to support his plan with humans


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Even Einstein said God does not play dice

And nothing is random


If nothing is random we could not have had a beginning that now science agrees with


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> your artist's sketch is one to make him bipedal and look human to fit humans evolved from monkeys.  The contradiction is tailed monkeys did not become tailless ones.  There are so many contradictions and holes in macroevolution that it's worthless.


You don't know much about anatomy either.  You can tell if a primate walked erect or not by looking at the skull.

What is this contradiction you keep mentioning?


----------



## alang1216

GreenAndBlue said:


> Even Einstein said God does not play dice
> 
> And nothing is random
> 
> If nothing is random we could not have had a beginning that now science agrees with


Einstein did say that but he has been proven wrong.


----------



## GreenAndBlue

But we see the educators and democrats going against science now with abortion ...we can see our advancement has not came from intelligence advancement 

Our advancement comes they cycles of like that brings us 3 steps forward and 2 steps back. Which means we advance 1 step

Liberals come when the unwise gets too much freedoms and then the universal laws kicks in and corrects with destruction

Each cycle of life we start out moving 3 steps forwards then freedoms comes to the unwise and we go back 2 steps 

Yes carbon dating and the fossil record proves the bible correct


----------



## alang1216

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, are you just having fun with us or are you really this dense?
> 
> 
> 
> He is really this stupid.
Click to expand...

Impossible!


----------



## alang1216

GreenAndBlue said:


> Yes carbon dating and the fossil record proves the bible correct


How old do you believe the earth is?


----------



## GreenAndBlue

alang1216 said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even Einstein said God does not play dice
> 
> And nothing is random
> 
> If nothing is random we could not have had a beginning that now science agrees with
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein did say that but he has been proven wrong.
Click to expand...



Wrong he has not

Science says the universe had a beginning that changed all atheists who were honest

The top atheist of 50 yrs scientist said he simply had to follow the evidence

Anthony Flew from UK


----------



## GreenAndBlue

alang1216 said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes carbon dating and the fossil record proves the bible correct
> 
> 
> 
> How old do you believe the earth is?
Click to expand...


The last I heard  something like 13 billion years 

The beginning is the key here

Something cannot come from nothing 

That nothing is the creator


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

GreenAndBlue said:


> Science says the universe had a beginning


Wrong.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

GreenAndBlue said:


> Something cannot come from nothing


Wrong.


----------



## GreenAndBlue

If the universe is 14 billions years 

Then the 7 days of creation is 2 billion years


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something cannot come from nothing
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
Click to expand...



The only something comes from
Nothing is a supernatural act

That then proves GOD

And the works here with humans proved his plan is to have humans as gods of the universe 

Humans are designed to harness all the power of the universe 

This is very clear now


----------



## alang1216

GreenAndBlue said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even Einstein said God does not play dice
> 
> And nothing is random
> 
> If nothing is random we could not have had a beginning that now science agrees with
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein did say that but he has been proven wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong he has not
> 
> Science says the universe had a beginning that changed all atheists who were honest
> 
> The top atheist of 50 yrs scientist said he simply had to follow the evidence
> 
> Anthony Flew from UK
Click to expand...

Wrong he was Yoda.  Do you know anything about quantum mechanics?


----------



## alang1216

GreenAndBlue said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes carbon dating and the fossil record proves the bible correct
> 
> 
> 
> How old do you believe the earth is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last I heard  something like 13 billion years
> 
> The beginning is the key here
> 
> Something cannot come from nothing
> 
> That nothing is the creator
Click to expand...

The Big Bang was like the opening of a door that let out the universe.  No one knows what was on the other side of that door but there is no reason to believe there was nothing.


----------



## GreenAndBlue

GreenAndBlue said:


> If the universe is 14 billions years
> 
> Then the 7 days of creation is 2 billion years



Gods days would be 2 billion years to match the age of the universe of around 14 billion years


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Big news just out recently

Archaeology has found that the invention of writing has occurred at least 4 different times and none came from each other

Why was that

Because humans were created and pre wired  to move forward in a certain way

There was no evolving 

The lion has not mutated its genes to decrease humans increasing dominance. In fact no other life form has mutated its genes to stop humans pressure of them

So that debunks the evolution theory 

Humans indeed created to become gods of the universe


----------



## GreenAndBlue

alang1216 said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes carbon dating and the fossil record proves the bible correct
> 
> 
> 
> How old do you believe the earth is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last I heard  something like 13 billion years
> 
> The beginning is the key here
> 
> Something cannot come from nothing
> 
> That nothing is the creator
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Big Bang was like the opening of a door that let out the universe.  No one knows what was on the other side of that door but there is no reason to believe there was nothing.
Click to expand...



Wrong because for over 14 billion years everything was cause and effect

A nothing cannot bring a explosion as the beginning 

So that proves the nothing as supernatural


----------



## GreenAndBlue

alang1216 said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even Einstein said God does not play dice
> 
> And nothing is random
> 
> If nothing is random we could not have had a beginning that now science agrees with
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein did say that but he has been proven wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong he has not
> 
> Science says the universe had a beginning that changed all atheists who were honest
> 
> The top atheist of 50 yrs scientist said he simply had to follow the evidence
> 
> Anthony Flew from UK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong he was Yoda.  Do you know anything about quantum mechanics?
Click to expand...


Do you know what logic does??


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> your artist's sketch is one to make him bipedal and look human to fit humans evolved from monkeys.  The contradiction is tailed monkeys did not become tailless ones.  There are so many contradictions and holes in macroevolution that it's worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know much about anatomy either.  You can tell if a primate walked erect or not by looking at the skull.
> 
> What is this contradiction you keep mentioning?
Click to expand...


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.  Just give it up you internet atheist fuzzball.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to teach you ToE,
> 
> 
> 
> You sure aren't, because you know less than nothing about it. All of your talking points are plagiarized, and you don't understand any of them. You constantly say factually incorrect things about evolution.
Click to expand...


I know a million x more than you just from evolution.berkeley.edu.  All you have are resorting to ad hominem attacks.  It makes you a loser every time.


----------



## Death Angel

GreenAndBlue said:


> If the universe is 14 billions years
> 
> Then the 7 days of creation is 2 billion years


That's NOT how it works. The Bible doesn't say what you think it says. The problem is your inability to read.


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Death Angel said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the universe is 14 billions years
> 
> Then the 7 days of creation is 2 billion years
> 
> 
> 
> That's NOT how it works. The Bible doesn't say what you think it says. The problem is your inability to read.
Click to expand...



Wrong the time frame are the same

Gods time of days is 2 billion years 

That goes with the timeline of 14 billion years   

And then he rested

That's why we don't see his actions because his actions have already been done and there is no need

A journey with pains and struggles and injustice was created for us first so that we can feel the opposite paradise much better

Yep a perfect plan 

Humans gonna be gods of the universe


----------



## Death Angel

GreenAndBlue said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the universe is 14 billions years
> 
> Then the 7 days of creation is 2 billion years
> 
> 
> 
> That's NOT how it works. The Bible doesn't say what you think it says. The problem is your inability to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong the time frame are the same
> 
> Gods time of days is 2 billion years
> 
> That goes with the timeline of 14 billion years
> 
> And then he rested
> 
> That's why we don't see his actions because his actions have already been done and there is no need
> 
> A journey with pains and struggles and injustice was created for us first so that we can feel the opposite paradise much better
> 
> Yep a perfect plan
> 
> Humans gonna be gods of the universe
Click to expand...

That's NOT what the Bible says. Sorry I don't have time, or the inclination, to spoon feed you. God RESTORED the world (from tohu and bohu -- emptiness and confusion) in 6 *DAYS*. You really can understand this stuff IF you start by actually BELIEVING God. You don't.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> The Big Bang was like the opening of a door that let out the universe.  No one knows what was on the other side of that door but there is no reason to believe there was nothing.



Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.  And who or what created the door?

I have to go with what Stephen Hawking said about singularity in terms of secular (atheist) scientists.  This should answer WinterBorn  wanting a link about the universe beginning, too.


Link
The Origin of the Universe


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.  And who or what created the door?


met·a·phor
/ˈmedəˌfôr,ˈmedəˌfər/
_noun_

a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
"her poetry depends on suggestion and metaphor"
synonyms: figure of speech, figurative expression, image, trope, allegory, parable, analogy, comparison, symbol, emblem, word painting, word picture; 
_literary_conceit
a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract.
"the amounts of money being lost by the company were enough to make it a *metaphor for* an industry that was teetering"


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Behind the Big Bang

What could it be

Everything in front of the Big Bang goes with nothing random and everything is cause and effect

So all the laws known to man comes after the Big Bang 

How then can a scientist who is supposed to go with evidence suddenly go off of evidence and says some random thing was before 

This proves modern atheists today are dumb and dishonest 

The top atheist Anthony Flew of UK  for 50 yrs totally changed because he had to follow the evidence 

He said modern atheists are simply dishonest like Dawkins 

Saying there is a random thing before the bang is not going with evidence

Simply dishonest people


Some of these dishonest people says there was energy before

Let's use 1 as this energy

1111111111111bang1million and a sudden change 

Again

111111111111-bang 20 million ---3 thrill ion 

That energy cannot suddenly change because something had to interact to bring the sudden change 

That added thing would also be coming from nothing since there was nothing but 1 before

So that proves we have a creator the supernatural being is the creator 

The creator does not follow the laws he made for life and the universe 

Then look at his works to know his plan


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Death Angel said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the universe is 14 billions years
> 
> Then the 7 days of creation is 2 billion years
> 
> 
> 
> That's NOT how it works. The Bible doesn't say what you think it says. The problem is your inability to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong the time frame are the same
> 
> Gods time of days is 2 billion years
> 
> That goes with the timeline of 14 billion years
> 
> And then he rested
> 
> That's why we don't see his actions because his actions have already been done and there is no need
> 
> A journey with pains and struggles and injustice was created for us first so that we can feel the opposite paradise much better
> 
> Yep a perfect plan
> 
> Humans gonna be gods of the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's NOT what the Bible says. Sorry I don't have time, or the inclination, to spoon feed you. God RESTORED the world (from tohu and bohu -- emptiness and confusion) in 6 *DAYS*. You really can understand this stuff IF you start by actually BELIEVING God. You don't.
Click to expand...


God rested on the 7th day

The 13 billion years of creating

He then saw a better way and came back to make the female partner who he gave the memory intellect ability to in order to spread to the kids what the logic of the male figures out 

To make life work the memory intellect has to obey the logic intellect

Eve did not 

Just like women today voting in crooks to bring in their worst nightmare the Muslims 

And now the same correct pain comes again

Everything is pre wired and set


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.  And who or what created the door?
> 
> 
> 
> met·a·phor
> /ˈmedəˌfôr,ˈmedəˌfər/
> _noun_
> 
> a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
> "her poetry depends on suggestion and metaphor"
> synonyms: figure of speech, figurative expression, image, trope, allegory, parable, analogy, comparison, symbol, emblem, word painting, word picture;
> _literary_conceit
> a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract.
> "the amounts of money being lost by the company were enough to make it a *metaphor for* an industry that was teetering"
Click to expand...


Otay.  So are you saying our universe did not begin and there was something else before that?  I have not heard of an acceptable science theory of this.  BBT still rules the secular/atheist science world.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Otay.  So are you saying our universe did not begin and there was something else before that?  I have not heard of an acceptable science theory of this.  BBT still rules the secular/atheist science world.


And you won't hear a theory since it was on the other side of the "door" we have no way of knowing what was there.  BBT is accepted by science but what came before it?  I'm content to say we don't know and may never know.


----------



## alang1216

GreenAndBlue said:


> God rested on the 7th day
> 
> The 13 billion years of creating
> 
> He then saw a better way and came back to make the female partner who he gave the memory intellect ability to in order to spread to the kids what the logic of the male figures out


So he spent millions of years creating male and female plants and animal and then decided to do the same with man because he then saw a better way?   God is omnipotent so he is incapable of seeing a "better" way, he has seen EVERY way since the beginning.  I'm beginning to think you're making this stuff up as you go.

BTW, both you and God seem quite misogynistic.


----------



## Death Angel

GreenAndBlue said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the universe is 14 billions years
> 
> Then the 7 days of creation is 2 billion years
> 
> 
> 
> That's NOT how it works. The Bible doesn't say what you think it says. The problem is your inability to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong the time frame are the same
> 
> Gods time of days is 2 billion years
> 
> That goes with the timeline of 14 billion years
> 
> And then he rested
> 
> That's why we don't see his actions because his actions have already been done and there is no need
> 
> A journey with pains and struggles and injustice was created for us first so that we can feel the opposite paradise much better
> 
> Yep a perfect plan
> 
> Humans gonna be gods of the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's NOT what the Bible says. Sorry I don't have time, or the inclination, to spoon feed you. God RESTORED the world (from tohu and bohu -- emptiness and confusion) in 6 *DAYS*. You really can understand this stuff IF you start by actually BELIEVING God. You don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God rested on the 7th day
> 
> The 13 billion years of creating
> 
> He then saw a better way and came back to make the female partner who he gave the memory intellect ability to in order to spread to the kids what the logic of the male figures out
> 
> To make life work the memory intellect has to obey the logic intellect
> 
> Eve did not
> 
> Just like women today voting in crooks to bring in their worst nightmare the Muslims
> 
> And now the same correct pain comes again
> 
> Everything is pre wired and set
Click to expand...

You reject the Bible and you have no interest in seeking TRUTH. The world loves its deception.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Death Angel said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're so gullible as to believe a silly youtube video, utterly unsupported, that's your choice. Just don't presume to foist your gullibility on others
> 
> 
> 
> Tou should do your homework science denier. Do you think the intent of that video, or the article was to prove the flood?
> Most idiots/tards think the flood was caused solely by 40 days of rain, but the truth is, GOD says he "opened the fountains of the deep."
> 
> The existence of this great body of water is FACT. Deny all you want, denier.
> 
> Rare Diamond Confirms That Earth's Mantle Holds an Ocean's Worth of Water
> 
> There’s as much water in Earth’s mantle as in all the oceans
> 
> Found! Hidden Ocean Locked Up Deep in Earth's Mantle
Click to expand...

*The Twinkling Void*

There's also an ocean of oil, gold, "rare-earth" elements, etc., underneath us.  We've barely scratched the surface of the planet's underground resources.  But sterile Trekkie scientists advise us to go wandering off into outer space.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Otay.  So are you saying our universe did not begin and there was something else before that?  I have not heard of an acceptable science theory of this.  BBT still rules the secular/atheist science world.
> 
> 
> 
> And you won't hear a theory since it was on the other side of the "door" we have no way of knowing what was there.  BBT is accepted by science but what came before it?  I'm content to say we don't know and may never know.
Click to expand...


If you do not know what was on the other side, then it could have been God.  Moreover, one would have to say the universe started from whatever the door was.  With BBT, it is singularity -- a point of infinite temperature and infinite density.  At least, this theory explains how tremendous amounts of matter can just start expanding in microseconds and then go into a cosmic inflation mode scant microseconds later.  However, all of this is conjecture as you are doing as there is no evidence for it except for CMB, the universe being here and expansion.  We do not see anything like quantum particles popping in and out of existence or producing high temperatures.  This would be creating energy when there was none, a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.  We do not see nor experience this at all at LHC.  What we do find is these quantum particles exist and how they move and operate.  Anyway, the point is even with what you call a door, there was a beginning to the universe.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> If you do not know what was on the other side, then it could have been God.


It could have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Speculating is useless.



james bond said:


> Anyway, the point is even with what you call a door, there was a beginning to the universe.


*The *universe or *our *universe?  Is there more than one universe?  We don't know.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you do not know what was on the other side, then it could have been God.
> 
> 
> 
> It could have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Speculating is useless.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, the point is even with what you call a door, there was a beginning to the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The *universe or *our *universe?  Is there more than one universe?  We don't know.
Click to expand...


Man, you are silly.  The flying spaghetti monster only exists in atheists' and your imagination.  We already know this haha.

And you believe in multiverses without any evidence.  This is stupid, too.  Why don't you believe in God then?  At least, he left a book.  As I told you before, you believe in "faith-based" science. 

I can easily disprove multiverses.  One, these quantum particles do not pop into and out of existence.  That requires heat and energy and one cannot create energy.  Energy can only be transferred.  Not only that, we do not observe one universe pop into existence.  It's only assumed it did because of the CMB and expansion that we found.  Moreover, these quantum particles require space and time to be in motion.  There wasn't any spacetime before this "door" or singularity.  Anyway, the actions of these invisible particles goes against every science that we know.  Thus, the secular scientists made up stuff like multiverses to explain how physics would not apply in the prior state to singularity..  It only exists in their imagination.  This is why Stephen Hawking died without getting a Nobel Prize.  A genius, but he was an atheist scientist and wrong.  He went up against classical physics and lost.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science says the universe had a beginning
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
Click to expand...

Your wrong is wrong. Suddenly about 13.8 billion years ago all energy was here - and is still here. No one is able to take energy away from the universe nor to add any energy to the universe. Energy is only able to be transformed. So you can see the process "creation" is totally different from the process "evolution".


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something cannot come from nothing
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
Click to expand...


Is only nothing within nothing or exist only a nothing where also not a nothing is "inside" too? We could ask why it is for the universe more easy to exist than not to exist. And why? Do you have any idea what the real answer could be? For us on our own it's much more easy not to exist here within this universe.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Otay.  So are you saying our universe did not begin and there was something else before that?  I have not heard of an acceptable science theory of this.  BBT still rules the secular/atheist science world.
> 
> 
> 
> And you won't hear a theory since it was on the other side of the "door" we have no way of knowing what was there.  BBT is accepted by science but what came before it?  I'm content to say we don't know and may never know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you do not know what was on the other side, then it could have been God.  Moreover, one would have to say the universe started from whatever the door was.  With BBT, it is singularity -- a point of infinite temperature and infinite density.  At least, this theory explains how tremendous amounts of matter can just start expanding in microseconds and then go into a cosmic inflation mode scant microseconds later.  However, all of this is conjecture as you are doing as there is no evidence for it except for CMB, the universe being here and expansion.  We do not see anything like quantum particles popping in and out of existence or producing high temperatures.  This would be creating energy when there was none, a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.  We do not see nor experience this at all at LHC.  What we do find is these quantum particles exist and how they move and operate.  Anyway, the point is even with what you call a door, there was a beginning to the universe.
Click to expand...


Not knowing all the details of the so-called Big Bang does nothing to support your version of the gods or anyone else’s version. 

You prefer that all of science and all of humanity remains forever in the grip of fear and superstition. However, the very nature of humankind and science is to learn and explore. That is actually quite contrary to the view of the religious extremist.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science says the universe had a beginning
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
Click to expand...


Two wrongs do not make a right.  You are a _wrong_ person, so you should try to fix what is wrong with your thinking first before stating others are wrong (I am having trouble saying this with a straight face ).

But I digress.  Atheist science states the universe had a beginning, as well as creation science.  It's no wonder non-believers have trouble because evolutionary thinking is fuzzy on this.  It started from nothing.  We call it creation ex nihilo.  The atheist scientists cannot accept this, so have made up universe from nothing or invisible particles.  Neither side has absolute proof, but the creation side has a witness.  The secular side has claims that the laws of science did not apply before this time.  Now, which side do you think has the better argument because it can't be both?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You prefer that all of science and all of humanity remains forever in the grip of fear and superstition. However, the very nature of humankind and science is to learn and explore. That is actually quite contrary to the view of the religious extremist.



You are wrong again and again.  Not just looney tunes.  God and Genesis as the supernatural are not superstition.  In fact, God warns us against believing in man-made superstitions, fortune tellers, mediums and the like.  If the very nature of humankind and science is to learn and explore, then why do they not explore God and Genesis?  This was done before the 1850s.  _* Why have they eliminated the main argument against secular science and evolution based on false claims?*_

I know I won't get an answer to my difficult questions for your brain.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You prefer that all of science and all of humanity remains forever in the grip of fear and superstition. However, the very nature of humankind and science is to learn and explore. That is actually quite contrary to the view of the religious extremist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong again and again.  Not just looney tunes.  God and Genesis as the supernatural are not superstition.  In fact, God warns us against believing in man-made superstitions, fortune tellers, mediums and the like.  If the very nature of humankind and science is to learn and explore, then why do they not explore God and Genesis?  This was done before the 1850s.  _* Why have they eliminated the main argument against secular science and evolution based on false claims?*_
> 
> I know I won't get an answer to my difficult questions for your brain.
Click to expand...


*Who is “They”?

What is the main argument against secular science?

What false claims are you alleging?*


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science says the universe had a beginning
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two wrongs do not make a right.  You are a _wrong_ person, so you should try to fix what is wrong with your thinking first before stating others are wrong (I am having trouble saying this with a straight face ).
> 
> But I digress.  Atheist science states the universe had a beginning, as well as creation science.  It's no wonder non-believers have trouble because evolutionary thinking is fuzzy on this.  It started from nothing.  We call it creation ex nihilo.  The atheist scientists cannot accept this, so have made up universe from nothing or invisible particles.  Neither side has absolute proof, but the creation side has a witness.  The secular side has claims that the laws of science did not apply before this time.  Now, which side do you think has the better argument because it can't be both?
Click to expand...


False. There is no such thing as “creation science”. The term is nothing more than a relabel of Christian extremism. 

The religious extremists at your Christian ministries do _no_ research, publish in _no_ peer reviewed journals and have a predefined agenda.

That is not science. That is religious extremism.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I know a million x more than you just from evolution.berkeley.edu.


Haha moron,no you don't. A 7th grader knows more than you about evolution. That's not a joke, a 7th grader really does know more than you about evolution.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Death Angel said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the universe is 14 billions years
> 
> Then the 7 days of creation is 2 billion years
> 
> 
> 
> That's NOT how it works. The Bible doesn't say what you think it says. The problem is your inability to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong the time frame are the same
> 
> Gods time of days is 2 billion years
> 
> That goes with the timeline of 14 billion years
> 
> And then he rested
> 
> That's why we don't see his actions because his actions have already been done and there is no need
> 
> A journey with pains and struggles and injustice was created for us first so that we can feel the opposite paradise much better
> 
> Yep a perfect plan
> 
> Humans gonna be gods of the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's NOT what the Bible says. Sorry I don't have time, or the inclination, to spoon feed you. God RESTORED the world (from tohu and bohu -- emptiness and confusion) in 6 *DAYS*. You really can understand this stuff IF you start by actually BELIEVING God. You don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God rested on the 7th day
> 
> The 13 billion years of creating
> 
> He then saw a better way and came back to make the female partner who he gave the memory intellect ability to in order to spread to the kids what the logic of the male figures out
> 
> To make life work the memory intellect has to obey the logic intellect
> 
> Eve did not
> 
> Just like women today voting in crooks to bring in their worst nightmare the Muslims
> 
> And now the same correct pain comes again
> 
> Everything is pre wired and set
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You reject the Bible and you have no interest in seeking TRUTH. The world loves its deception.
Click to expand...

Maybe if the proselytizers came to the table with something more than, "because I say so", they might persuade educated people.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you do not know what was on the other side, then it could have been God.
> 
> 
> 
> It could have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Speculating is useless.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, the point is even with what you call a door, there was a beginning to the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The *universe or *our *universe?  Is there more than one universe?  We don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, you are silly.  The flying spaghetti monster only exists in atheists' and your imagination.  We already know this haha.
> 
> And you believe in multiverses without any evidence.  This is stupid, too.  Why don't you believe in God then?  At least, he left a book.  As I told you before, you believe in "faith-based" science.
> 
> I can easily disprove multiverses.  One, these quantum particles do not pop into and out of existence.  That requires heat and energy and one cannot create energy.  Energy can only be transferred.  Not only that, we do not observe one universe pop into existence.  It's only assumed it did because of the CMB and expansion that we found.  Moreover, these quantum particles require space and time to be in motion.  There wasn't any spacetime before this "door" or singularity.  Anyway, the actions of these invisible particles goes against every science that we know.  Thus, the secular scientists made up stuff like multiverses to explain how physics would not apply in the prior state to singularity..  It only exists in their imagination.  This is why Stephen Hawking died without getting a Nobel Prize.  A genius, but he was an atheist scientist and wrong.  He went up against classical physics and lost.
Click to expand...

I only said "we don't know" about multiverses but you can NOT disprove multiverses since you don't know the math behind them.  And Quantum particles *do *pop into and out of existence.  Amazing how consistently you are just plain wrong.


----------



## GreenAndBlue

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science says the universe had a beginning
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two wrongs do not make a right.  You are a _wrong_ person, so you should try to fix what is wrong with your thinking first before stating others are wrong (I am having trouble saying this with a straight face ).
> 
> But I digress.  Atheist science states the universe had a beginning, as well as creation science.  It's no wonder non-believers have trouble because evolutionary thinking is fuzzy on this.  It started from nothing.  We call it creation ex nihilo.  The atheist scientists cannot accept this, so have made up universe from nothing or invisible particles.  Neither side has absolute proof, but the creation side has a witness.  The secular side has claims that the laws of science did not apply before this time.  Now, which side do you think has the better argument because it can't be both?
Click to expand...



If atheist scientists says the universe had a beginning then saying that means no God would prove they have low logic and very wrong 

A beginning is the proof 

If one has logic to know what proves what


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science says the universe had a beginning
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two wrongs do not make a right.  You are a _wrong_ person, so you should try to fix what is wrong with your thinking first before stating others are wrong (I am having trouble saying this with a straight face ).
> 
> But I digress.  Atheist science states the universe had a beginning, as well as creation science.  It's no wonder non-believers have trouble because evolutionary thinking is fuzzy on this.  It started from nothing.  We call it creation ex nihilo.  The atheist scientists cannot accept this, so have made up universe from nothing or invisible particles.  Neither side has absolute proof, but the creation side has a witness.  The secular side has claims that the laws of science did not apply before this time.  Now, which side do you think has the better argument because it can't be both?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. There is no such thing as “creation science”. The term is nothing more than a relabel of Christian extremism.
> 
> The religious extremists at your Christian ministries do _no_ research, publish in _no_ peer reviewed journals and have a predefined agenda.
> 
> That is not science. That is religious extremism.
Click to expand...


Wrong


When science says the universe had a beginning that proves they agree with CREATION of the Universe and all things within 

Logic is what proves something or not 

The so called atheist scientists are blind with their stupidity


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's NOT how it works. The Bible doesn't say what you think it says. The problem is your inability to read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong the time frame are the same
> 
> Gods time of days is 2 billion years
> 
> That goes with the timeline of 14 billion years
> 
> And then he rested
> 
> That's why we don't see his actions because his actions have already been done and there is no need
> 
> A journey with pains and struggles and injustice was created for us first so that we can feel the opposite paradise much better
> 
> Yep a perfect plan
> 
> Humans gonna be gods of the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's NOT what the Bible says. Sorry I don't have time, or the inclination, to spoon feed you. God RESTORED the world (from tohu and bohu -- emptiness and confusion) in 6 *DAYS*. You really can understand this stuff IF you start by actually BELIEVING God. You don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God rested on the 7th day
> 
> The 13 billion years of creating
> 
> He then saw a better way and came back to make the female partner who he gave the memory intellect ability to in order to spread to the kids what the logic of the male figures out
> 
> To make life work the memory intellect has to obey the logic intellect
> 
> Eve did not
> 
> Just like women today voting in crooks to bring in their worst nightmare the Muslims
> 
> And now the same correct pain comes again
> 
> Everything is pre wired and set
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You reject the Bible and you have no interest in seeking TRUTH. The world loves its deception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe if the proselytizers came to the table with something more than, "because I say so", they might persuade educated people.
Click to expand...



Educated does not equal wise

It is logic that equals wise

Correct predictions equals wise


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You prefer that all of science and all of humanity remains forever in the grip of fear and superstition. However, the very nature of humankind and science is to learn and explore. That is actually quite contrary to the view of the religious extremist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong again and again.  Not just looney tunes.  God and Genesis as the supernatural are not superstition.  In fact, God warns us against believing in man-made superstitions, fortune tellers, mediums and the like.  If the very nature of humankind and science is to learn and explore, then why do they not explore God and Genesis?  This was done before the 1850s.  _* Why have they eliminated the main argument against secular science and evolution based on false claims?*_
> 
> I know I won't get an answer to my difficult questions for your brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Who is “They”?
> 
> What is the main argument against secular science?
> 
> What false claims are you alleging?*
Click to expand...




james bond said:


> I know I won't get an answer to my difficult questions for your brain.



Haha.  I was right.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you do not know what was on the other side, then it could have been God.
> 
> 
> 
> It could have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Speculating is useless.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, the point is even with what you call a door, there was a beginning to the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The *universe or *our *universe?  Is there more than one universe?  We don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, you are silly.  The flying spaghetti monster only exists in atheists' and your imagination.  We already know this haha.
> 
> And you believe in multiverses without any evidence.  This is stupid, too.  Why don't you believe in God then?  At least, he left a book.  As I told you before, you believe in "faith-based" science.
> 
> I can easily disprove multiverses.  One, these quantum particles do not pop into and out of existence.  That requires heat and energy and one cannot create energy.  Energy can only be transferred.  Not only that, we do not observe one universe pop into existence.  It's only assumed it did because of the CMB and expansion that we found.  Moreover, these quantum particles require space and time to be in motion.  There wasn't any spacetime before this "door" or singularity.  Anyway, the actions of these invisible particles goes against every science that we know.  Thus, the secular scientists made up stuff like multiverses to explain how physics would not apply in the prior state to singularity..  It only exists in their imagination.  This is why Stephen Hawking died without getting a Nobel Prize.  A genius, but he was an atheist scientist and wrong.  He went up against classical physics and lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only said "we don't know" about multiverses but you can NOT disprove multiverses since you don't know the math behind them.  And Quantum particles *do *pop into and out of existence.  Amazing how consistently you are just plain wrong.
Click to expand...


You need to re-read my post.  I did it in my previous post already.  Now why don't you demonstrate your claims when both violate the laws of thermodynamics.  We have the LHC to use.  You are one silly, mad and feckless s&t poster.  I should be leaving as I have shown science backs up the Bible once again.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You prefer that all of science and all of humanity remains forever in the grip of fear and superstition. However, the very nature of humankind and science is to learn and explore. That is actually quite contrary to the view of the religious extremist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong again and again.  Not just looney tunes.  God and Genesis as the supernatural are not superstition.  In fact, God warns us against believing in man-made superstitions, fortune tellers, mediums and the like.  If the very nature of humankind and science is to learn and explore, then why do they not explore God and Genesis?  This was done before the 1850s.  _* Why have they eliminated the main argument against secular science and evolution based on false claims?*_
> 
> I know I won't get an answer to my difficult questions for your brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Who is “They”?
> 
> What is the main argument against secular science?
> 
> What false claims are you alleging?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know I won't get an answer to my difficult questions for your brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  I was right.
Click to expand...


No, you’re wrong. As usual, you’re trying to evade. I’ve noticed a pattern where you seek to evade direct challenges to your dogma because direct challenges would require direct responses and not the usual appeals to magic and supernaturalism.


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Now the issue of DNA is giving us snswers

One human being inside them have all of the DNA codes inside of all humans conceived and those codes are waiting to be extracted at a certain time

Each conceived human has its own unique name. Which is its DNA code

It seems easy to extract and know the DNA code of its mother and father

This works like paint

The color pink comes from a mix of red and white.

It seems our creator knows all of his creations  by their DNA code name even then may bring us all to paradise by their DNA code name


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> You need to re-read my post.  I did it in my previous post already.  Now why don't you demonstrate your claims when both violate the laws of thermodynamics.  We have the LHC to use.  You are one silly, mad and feckless s&t poster.  I should be leaving as I have shown science backs up the Bible once again.


I re-read your post and it is still incorrect.  What violates the laws of thermodynamics?  I'm guessing you didn't bother to read my link educate yourself or you wouldn't ask such a question.  

You have demonstrated many things but you have not have shown that science backs up the Bible.  I somehow doubt you know enough about either to do that.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

james bond said:


> You are wrong again and again.  Not just looney tunes.  God and Genesis as the supernatural are not superstition.  In fact, God warns us against believing in man-made superstitions, fortune tellers, mediums and the like.  If the very nature of humankind and science is to learn and explore, then why do they not explore God and Genesis?  This was done before the 1850s.  _* Why have they eliminated the main argument against secular science and evolution based on false claims?*_
> 
> I know I won't get an answer to my difficult questions for your brain.







*Fantasies to Suit Your Fancy*

There is nothing lower than imagining that believing in a Higher Power makes you above the rest of us.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to re-read my post.  I did it in my previous post already.  Now why don't you demonstrate your claims when both violate the laws of thermodynamics.  We have the LHC to use.  You are one silly, mad and feckless s&t poster.  I should be leaving as I have shown science backs up the Bible once again.
> 
> 
> 
> I re-read your post and it is still incorrect.  What violates the laws of thermodynamics?  I'm guessing you didn't bother to read my link educate yourself or you wouldn't ask such a question.
> 
> You have demonstrated many things but you have not have shown that science backs up the Bible.  I somehow doubt you know enough about either to do that.
Click to expand...


If quantum particles pop into existence, then they violated conservation of energy.  Of course, you cannot figure this out for yourself and have to have it explained to you.
I've explained several concepts of real science to you and it has made your head explode.  Maybe science is not your bag as you try to explain it with your own erroneous thinking and imagination.  Perhaps, you should try the religious forum.


----------



## james bond

The Sage of Main Street said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong again and again.  Not just looney tunes.  God and Genesis as the supernatural are not superstition.  In fact, God warns us against believing in man-made superstitions, fortune tellers, mediums and the like.  If the very nature of humankind and science is to learn and explore, then why do they not explore God and Genesis?  This was done before the 1850s.  _* Why have they eliminated the main argument against secular science and evolution based on false claims?*_
> 
> I know I won't get an answer to my difficult questions for your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fantasies to Suit Your Fancy*
> 
> There is nothing lower than imagining that believing in a Higher Power makes you above the rest of us.
Click to expand...








Of course, there is a higher power.  This would be REQUIRED to create space, time and the universe.  Nothing else could do it.  We all know this in the back of our heads, but those of atheists/agnostics have been swayed by other humans.  As I've stated, the secular or atheist scientists who are making up stuff to fit evolutionary thinking, history and ToE are the ones using imagination and fantasies.  For example, they claim the law of physics did not apply during singularity.

It's funny you said, "nothing is lower."  Those who are down in the dregs without faith in the higher power do not know how to pull themselves out.


----------



## GreenAndBlue

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to re-read my post.  I did it in my previous post already.  Now why don't you demonstrate your claims when both violate the laws of thermodynamics.  We have the LHC to use.  You are one silly, mad and feckless s&t poster.  I should be leaving as I have shown science backs up the Bible once again.
> 
> 
> 
> I re-read your post and it is still incorrect.  What violates the laws of thermodynamics?  I'm guessing you didn't bother to read my link educate yourself or you wouldn't ask such a question.
> 
> You have demonstrated many things but you have not have shown that science backs up the Bible.  I somehow doubt you know enough about either to do that.
Click to expand...



You got it wrong


 A low logic mind is the cause

One with logic can see this easily

111111111111-10 million - 5 thrillion

That is one theory    The 1 is what was before the Big Bang and the sudden change is the 10 million and the next 5 trillion shows the beginning explosion and the ever expanding universe

This theory would prove a creator just as much as if nothing is before the Big Bang .. Because something had to be added to interact to make that sudden change .. Both theories would require something to come from nothing


So the problem is  low logic that makes a person blind to know what proves what


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong again and again.  Not just looney tunes.  God and Genesis as the supernatural are not superstition.  In fact, God warns us against believing in man-made superstitions, fortune tellers, mediums and the like.  If the very nature of humankind and science is to learn and explore, then why do they not explore God and Genesis?  This was done before the 1850s.  _* Why have they eliminated the main argument against secular science and evolution based on false claims?*_
> 
> I know I won't get an answer to my difficult questions for your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fantasies to Suit Your Fancy*
> 
> There is nothing lower than imagining that believing in a Higher Power makes you above the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, there is a higher power.  This would be REQUIRED to create space, time and the universe.  Nothing else could do it.  We all know this in the back of our heads, but those of atheists/agnostics have been swayed by other humans.  As I've stated, the secular or atheist scientists who are making up stuff to fit evolutionary thinking, history and ToE are the ones using imagination and fantasies.  For example, they claim the law of physics did not apply during singularity.
> 
> It's funny you said, "nothing is lower."  Those who are down in the dregs without faith in the higher power do not know how to pull themselves out.
Click to expand...


There is no reason to accept that any of the human inventions of the gods are required to account for the existence of space and time.

Can you provide a single, rational reason why your gods are required as the cause of existence?


----------



## alang1216

GreenAndBlue said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to re-read my post.  I did it in my previous post already.  Now why don't you demonstrate your claims when both violate the laws of thermodynamics.  We have the LHC to use.  You are one silly, mad and feckless s&t poster.  I should be leaving as I have shown science backs up the Bible once again.
> 
> 
> 
> I re-read your post and it is still incorrect.  What violates the laws of thermodynamics?  I'm guessing you didn't bother to read my link educate yourself or you wouldn't ask such a question.
> 
> You have demonstrated many things but you have not have shown that science backs up the Bible.  I somehow doubt you know enough about either to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You got it wrong
> 
> 
> A low logic mind is the cause
> 
> One with logic can see this easily
> 
> 111111111111-10 million - 5 thrillion
> 
> That is one theory    The 1 is what was before the Big Bang and the sudden change is the 10 million and the next 5 trillion shows the beginning explosion and the ever expanding universe
> 
> This theory would prove a creator just as much as if nothing is before the Big Bang .. Because something had to be added to interact to make that sudden change .. Both theories would require something to come from nothing
> 
> 
> So the problem is  low logic that makes a person blind to know what proves what
Click to expand...

Our universe exists so it had to come from nothing.  God exists yet he didn't have to come from nothing? 

Everything we know about God comes from God.  There is no independent verification.  God says he is the only god but maybe he just doesn't know about his creator?


----------



## GreenAndBlue

alang1216 said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to re-read my post.  I did it in my previous post already.  Now why don't you demonstrate your claims when both violate the laws of thermodynamics.  We have the LHC to use.  You are one silly, mad and feckless s&t poster.  I should be leaving as I have shown science backs up the Bible once again.
> 
> 
> 
> I re-read your post and it is still incorrect.  What violates the laws of thermodynamics?  I'm guessing you didn't bother to read my link educate yourself or you wouldn't ask such a question.
> 
> You have demonstrated many things but you have not have shown that science backs up the Bible.  I somehow doubt you know enough about either to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You got it wrong
> 
> 
> A low logic mind is the cause
> 
> One with logic can see this easily
> 
> 111111111111-10 million - 5 thrillion
> 
> That is one theory    The 1 is what was before the Big Bang and the sudden change is the 10 million and the next 5 trillion shows the beginning explosion and the ever expanding universe
> 
> This theory would prove a creator just as much as if nothing is before the Big Bang .. Because something had to be added to interact to make that sudden change .. Both theories would require something to come from nothing
> 
> 
> So the problem is  low logic that makes a person blind to know what proves what
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our universe exists so it had to come from nothing.  God exists yet he didn't have to come from nothing?
> 
> Everything we know about God comes from God.  There is no independent verification.  God says he is the only god but maybe he just doesn't know about his creator?
Click to expand...


Here is the thing about atheists scientists ... Just like the top atheist scientist Anthony Flew said ... They are dishonest crooks. 

There is simply NO evidence of a NO GOD. So how could they be atheists? 

And the big news is how they cut their own throats with that view point 


Humans Immune system was PRE- WIRED at creation to get help or harm if you believe in God or not

Believers gets their immune system protected. Non believers do not

This is the same as God 
pre planned to slap down the wrong atheists 

God put us on a journey to go find and understand him


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong again and again.  Not just looney tunes.  God and Genesis as the supernatural are not superstition.  In fact, God warns us against believing in man-made superstitions, fortune tellers, mediums and the like.  If the very nature of humankind and science is to learn and explore, then why do they not explore God and Genesis?  This was done before the 1850s.  _* Why have they eliminated the main argument against secular science and evolution based on false claims?*_
> 
> I know I won't get an answer to my difficult questions for your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fantasies to Suit Your Fancy*
> 
> There is nothing lower than imagining that believing in a Higher Power makes you above the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, there is a higher power.  This would be REQUIRED to create space, time and the universe.  Nothing else could do it.  We all know this in the back of our heads, but those of atheists/agnostics have been swayed by other humans.  As I've stated, the secular or atheist scientists who are making up stuff to fit evolutionary thinking, history and ToE are the ones using imagination and fantasies.  For example, they claim the law of physics did not apply during singularity.
> 
> It's funny you said, "nothing is lower."  Those who are down in the dregs without faith in the higher power do not know how to pull themselves out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no reason to accept that any of the human inventions of the gods are required to account for the existence of space and time.
> 
> Can you provide a single, rational reason why your gods are required as the cause of existence?
Click to expand...


Space and time did not exist before the bang ..

A low logic answer there

Only GOD existed 

Again this formula is how it cannot work

Space and time theory always and always before the bang 


1 represents this 1 thing that is always and always 

1111111111-10 million- 5 trillion- 1 million trillion 

That formula is that theory and the proof of the explosion and expansion afterwards

See to make that 1 thing change something had to be added FROM NOTHING

So back to square one

The whole universe began from nothing 

That start proves the supernatural
God

Then check the works and the plan can be seen

Humans to be like gods 

Humans made in gods image

To become gods of the universe 

To harness all the power of the universe and black holes 

Without logic one is blind to understand 

The snake handlers got drunk in the spirit that produced a block against the snakes poison

So now we have learned how the immune system can save us from
Cancer

So there will be a movement to help cancer by getting drunk in the spirit


----------



## GreenAndBlue

james bond said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong again and again.  Not just looney tunes.  God and Genesis as the supernatural are not superstition.  In fact, God warns us against believing in man-made superstitions, fortune tellers, mediums and the like.  If the very nature of humankind and science is to learn and explore, then why do they not explore God and Genesis?  This was done before the 1850s.  _* Why have they eliminated the main argument against secular science and evolution based on false claims?*_
> 
> I know I won't get an answer to my difficult questions for your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fantasies to Suit Your Fancy*
> 
> There is nothing lower than imagining that believing in a Higher Power makes you above the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, there is a higher power.  This would be REQUIRED to create space, time and the universe.  Nothing else could do it.  We all know this in the back of our heads, but those of atheists/agnostics have been swayed by other humans.  As I've stated, the secular or atheist scientists who are making up stuff to fit evolutionary thinking, history and ToE are the ones using imagination and fantasies.  For example, they claim the law of physics did not apply during singularity.
> 
> It's funny you said, "nothing is lower."  Those who are down in the dregs without faith in the higher power do not know how to pull themselves out.
Click to expand...



Yep atheists are indeed making up fantasies without a shred of evidence


----------



## GreenAndBlue

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to re-read my post.  I did it in my previous post already.  Now why don't you demonstrate your claims when both violate the laws of thermodynamics.  We have the LHC to use.  You are one silly, mad and feckless s&t poster.  I should be leaving as I have shown science backs up the Bible once again.
> 
> 
> 
> I re-read your post and it is still incorrect.  What violates the laws of thermodynamics?  I'm guessing you didn't bother to read my link educate yourself or you wouldn't ask such a question.
> 
> You have demonstrated many things but you have not have shown that science backs up the Bible.  I somehow doubt you know enough about either to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If quantum particles pop into existence, then they violated conservation of energy.  Of course, you cannot figure this out for yourself and have to have it explained to you.
> I've explained several concepts of real science to you and it has made your head explode.  Maybe science is not your bag as you try to explain it with your own erroneous thinking and imagination.  Perhaps, you should try the religious forum.
Click to expand...



Modern science has now proven that abortion is murder of a human being

Yep atheists scientists tries to cover that science up


----------



## Hollie

GreenAndBlue said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong again and again.  Not just looney tunes.  God and Genesis as the supernatural are not superstition.  In fact, God warns us against believing in man-made superstitions, fortune tellers, mediums and the like.  If the very nature of humankind and science is to learn and explore, then why do they not explore God and Genesis?  This was done before the 1850s.  _* Why have they eliminated the main argument against secular science and evolution based on false claims?*_
> 
> I know I won't get an answer to my difficult questions for your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fantasies to Suit Your Fancy*
> 
> There is nothing lower than imagining that believing in a Higher Power makes you above the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, there is a higher power.  This would be REQUIRED to create space, time and the universe.  Nothing else could do it.  We all know this in the back of our heads, but those of atheists/agnostics have been swayed by other humans.  As I've stated, the secular or atheist scientists who are making up stuff to fit evolutionary thinking, history and ToE are the ones using imagination and fantasies.  For example, they claim the law of physics did not apply during singularity.
> 
> It's funny you said, "nothing is lower."  Those who are down in the dregs without faith in the higher power do not know how to pull themselves out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no reason to accept that any of the human inventions of the gods are required to account for the existence of space and time.
> 
> Can you provide a single, rational reason why your gods are required as the cause of existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Space and time did not exist before the bang ..
> 
> A low logic answer there
> 
> Only GOD existed
> 
> Again this formula is how it cannot work
> 
> Space and time theory always and always before the bang
> 
> 
> 1 represents this 1 thing that is always and always
> 
> 1111111111-10 million- 5 trillion- 1 million trillion
> 
> That formula is that theory and the proof of the explosion and expansion afterwards
> 
> See to make that 1 thing change something had to be added FROM NOTHING
> 
> So back to square one
> 
> The whole universe began from nothing
> 
> That start proves the supernatural
> God
> 
> Then check the works and the plan can be seen
> 
> Humans to be like gods
> 
> Humans made in gods image
> 
> To become gods of the universe
> 
> To harness all the power of the universe and black holes
> 
> Without logic one is blind to understand
> 
> The snake handlers got drunk in the spirit that produced a block against the snakes poison
> 
> So now we have learned how the immune system can save us from
> Cancer
> 
> So there will be a movement to help cancer by getting drunk in the spirit
Click to expand...


Your unsupported, uncorroborated claims are best appended with

".... because I say so",


----------



## alang1216

GreenAndBlue said:


> Modern science has now proven that abortion is murder of a human being
> 
> Yep atheists scientists tries to cover that science up


Science can say something has died, it cannot say something has been murdered.  Murder is a religious, moral, or legal question that science can't answer.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

james bond said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong again and again.  Not just looney tunes.  God and Genesis as the supernatural are not superstition.  In fact, God warns us against believing in man-made superstitions, fortune tellers, mediums and the like.  If the very nature of humankind and science is to learn and explore, then why do they not explore God and Genesis?  This was done before the 1850s.  _* Why have they eliminated the main argument against secular science and evolution based on false claims?*_
> 
> I know I won't get an answer to my difficult questions for your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fantasies to Suit Your Fancy*
> 
> There is nothing lower than imagining that believing in a Higher Power makes you above the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, there is a higher power.  This would be REQUIRED to create space, time and the universe.  Nothing else could do it.  We all know this in the back of our heads, but those of atheists/agnostics have been swayed by other humans.  As I've stated, the secular or atheist scientists who are making up stuff to fit evolutionary thinking, history and ToE are the ones using imagination and fantasies.  For example, they claim the law of physics did not apply during singularity.
> 
> you said, "nothing is lower."  Those who are down in the dregs without faith in the higher power do not know how to pull themselves out.
Click to expand...

*All Is Lava*

You prove my point.  You want to believe all that because it makes those living outside your grand delusion look stupid and, what's worse, dependent on mere men to explain things, while you are buddies with Superman.  

I, too, believe that the Singularity is impossible.  But that doesn't make me jump away back to primitive superstitions, no matter how much glory I feel I get from from that.  One logical answer is that there was an eruption from another universe where the laws of physics are different.  For example, the maximum velocity there is c^2, a light-year every three minutes.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Hollie said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong again and again.  Not just looney tunes.  God and Genesis as the supernatural are not superstition.  In fact, God warns us against believing in man-made superstitions, fortune tellers, mediums and the like.  If the very nature of humankind and science is to learn and explore, then why do they not explore God and Genesis?  This was done before the 1850s.  _* Why have they eliminated the main argument against secular science and evolution based on false claims?*_
> 
> I know I won't get an answer to my difficult questions for your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fantasies to Suit Your Fancy*
> 
> There is nothing lower than imagining that believing in a Higher Power makes you above the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, there is a higher power.  This would be REQUIRED to create space, time and the universe.  Nothing else could do it.  We all know this in the back of our heads, but those of atheists/agnostics have been swayed by other humans.  As I've stated, the secular or atheist scientists who are making up stuff to fit evolutionary thinking, history and ToE are the ones using imagination and fantasies.  For example, they claim the law of physics did not apply during singularity.
> 
> It's funny you said, "nothing is lower."  Those who are down in the dregs without faith in the higher power do not know how to pull themselves out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no reason to accept that any of the human inventions of the gods are required to account for the existence of space and time.
> 
> Can you provide a single, rational reason why your gods are required as the cause of existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Space and time did not exist before the bang ..
> 
> A low logic answer there
> 
> Only GOD existed
> 
> Again this formula is how it cannot work
> 
> Space and time theory always and always before the bang
> 
> 
> 1 represents this 1 thing that is always and always
> 
> 1111111111-10 million- 5 trillion- 1 million trillion
> 
> That formula is that theory and the proof of the explosion and expansion afterwards
> 
> See to make that 1 thing change something had to be added FROM NOTHING
> 
> So back to square one
> 
> The whole universe began from nothing
> 
> That start proves the supernatural
> God
> 
> Then check the works and the plan can be seen
> 
> Humans to be like gods
> 
> Humans made in gods image
> 
> To become gods of the universe
> 
> To harness all the power of the universe and black holes
> 
> Without logic one is blind to understand
> 
> The snake handlers got drunk in the spirit that produced a block against the snakes poison
> 
> So now we have learned how the immune system can save us from
> Cancer
> 
> So there will be a movement to help cancer by getting drunk in the spirit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your unsupported, uncorroborated claims are best appended with
> 
> ".... because I say so",
Click to expand...

*Petitio Principii*

"God wouldn't let us believe in Him if He didn't exist."


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.  And who or what created the door?
> 
> 
> 
> met·a·phor
> /ˈmedəˌfôr,ˈmedəˌfər/
> _noun_
> 
> a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
> "her poetry depends on suggestion and metaphor"
> synonyms: figure of speech, figurative expression, image, trope, allegory, parable, analogy, comparison, symbol, emblem, word painting, word picture;
> _literary_conceit
> a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract.
> "the amounts of money being lost by the company were enough to make it a *metaphor for* an industry that was teetering"
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Otay.  So are you saying our universe did not begin and there was something else before that?  I have not heard of an acceptable science theory of this.  BBT still rules the secular/atheist science world.
Click to expand...

When did God begin?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> There is no reason to accept that any of the human inventions of the gods are required to account for the existence of space and time.



Then it would require a spaceless and timeless situation.  This defies any law of physics that we know.  Even invisible quantum particles require space as Hawking admitted.  Thus, they came up with quantum particles popping in and out of existence and laws of physics did not apply.  He was saying space was created first.  In our material world, we also need time for these particles to be in motion.  This evidence strengthens the evidence for God or something metaphysical, i.e. spiritual, outside the realm of materialism.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.  And who or what created the door?
> 
> 
> 
> met·a·phor
> /ˈmedəˌfôr,ˈmedəˌfər/
> _noun_
> 
> a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
> "her poetry depends on suggestion and metaphor"
> synonyms: figure of speech, figurative expression, image, trope, allegory, parable, analogy, comparison, symbol, emblem, word painting, word picture;
> _literary_conceit
> a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract.
> "the amounts of money being lost by the company were enough to make it a *metaphor for* an industry that was teetering"
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Otay.  So are you saying our universe did not begin and there was something else before that?  I have not heard of an acceptable science theory of this.  BBT still rules the secular/atheist science world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did God begin?
Click to expand...


Are you admitting that God exists now?  Have you changed your mind and have faith in God?  This would be the first step to changing your worldview and life.

God did not begin.  He is beginningless, eternal and outside the realm of materialism.  He is metaphysical or spiritual.  He would also have to be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, all powerful and more in order to create space time and the universe the way it exists today.  It would be impossible for it to happen randomly.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bripat9643 said:


> When did God begin?


Sorry, only shamans like Bond get to declare magic in this discussion. Which makes one wonder why he goes through this exercise of embarrassing himself by trying to undermine a scientific theory he knows less than nothing about.

Doesn't that seem odd to you? He is already willing to just point at everything and say, "its magic!!" . So why does this idiot feel compelled to lie and wrangle with the evidence? It makea no sense. Poor little guy is embarrassing himself


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.  And who or what created the door?
> 
> 
> 
> met·a·phor
> /ˈmedəˌfôr,ˈmedəˌfər/
> _noun_
> 
> a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
> "her poetry depends on suggestion and metaphor"
> synonyms: figure of speech, figurative expression, image, trope, allegory, parable, analogy, comparison, symbol, emblem, word painting, word picture;
> _literary_conceit
> a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract.
> "the amounts of money being lost by the company were enough to make it a *metaphor for* an industry that was teetering"
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Otay.  So are you saying our universe did not begin and there was something else before that?  I have not heard of an acceptable science theory of this.  BBT still rules the secular/atheist science world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did God begin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you admitting that God exists now?  Have you changed your mind and have faith in God?  This would be the first step to changing your worldview and life.
> 
> God did not begin.  He is beginningless, eternal and outside the realm of materialism.  He is metaphysical or spiritual.  He would also have to be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, all powerful and more in order to create space time and the universe the way it exists today.  It would be impossible for it to happen randomly.
Click to expand...

You just admitted that not everything has a beginning, nor requires a cause.  So why should anyone believe the universe has a cause or a beginning?


----------



## bripat9643

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did God begin?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, only shamans like Bond get to declare magic in this discussion. Which makes one wonder why he goes through this exercise of embarrassing himself by trying to undermine a scientific theory he knows less than nothing about.
> 
> Doesn't that seem odd to you? He is already willing to just point at everything and say, "its magic!!" . So why does this idiot feel compelled to lie and wrangle with the evidence? It makea no sense. Poor little guy is embarrassing himself
Click to expand...

James Bond is dumber than most of the creationists I encounter.  However, none of them are capable of recognizing a contradiction in their "logic" even when you point it out to them.  They just repeat the same talking points over and over.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.  And who or what created the door?
> 
> 
> 
> met·a·phor
> /ˈmedəˌfôr,ˈmedəˌfər/
> _noun_
> 
> a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
> "her poetry depends on suggestion and metaphor"
> synonyms: figure of speech, figurative expression, image, trope, allegory, parable, analogy, comparison, symbol, emblem, word painting, word picture;
> _literary_conceit
> a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract.
> "the amounts of money being lost by the company were enough to make it a *metaphor for* an industry that was teetering"
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Otay.  So are you saying our universe did not begin and there was something else before that?  I have not heard of an acceptable science theory of this.  BBT still rules the secular/atheist science world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did God begin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you admitting that God exists now?  Have you changed your mind and have faith in God?  This would be the first step to changing your worldview and life.
> 
> God did not begin.  He is beginningless, eternal and outside the realm of materialism.  He is metaphysical or spiritual.  He would also have to be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, all powerful and more in order to create space time and the universe the way it exists today.  It would be impossible for it to happen randomly.
Click to expand...



“.... because I say so”. 

I think it’s worth pointing out that you have ascribed to your gods the same attributes that men have ascribed to the gods that have come and gone before your gods. 

Consider this historically accurate and defendable argument:

Every god, with time, is swept away and looked upon as myth.

Where is the worship of Osiris? Of Isis, worshipped for 5,000 years. Where is Zeus, Odin, Jupiter? Where are the Druids, now as silent as Stonehenge, as cold and as silent as the Sphinx.

Dust, all. Antiquities. History suggests it will be also with Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu.

It’s already happening, and as science makes them less relevant, we see the rise in fundamentalism. Why are fundamentalist religionists so reactionary? Because the adherents sense all around them the growing tide of humanism. The hyper-religious in these threads defame the non-believers as vile and godless and loathsome because… well, because as time goes on we do grow more godless. And as time goes by, and the gods don’t return to this earth, as the gods don’t prove salvation, we grow yet further away from fantasy and fiction. And that terrifies the hyper-religious. They know full well there is only faith and belief to support the “belief”. As mankind grows in scientific knowledge, those things once ascribed to the gods are taken away, leaving the gods to sit and judge, nothing more, and even of that, only the dead, a state of being no one ever returns from to testify whether or not the claims are true.


----------



## GreenAndBlue

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Fantasies to Suit Your Fancy*
> 
> There is nothing lower than imagining that believing in a Higher Power makes you above the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, there is a higher power.  This would be REQUIRED to create space, time and the universe.  Nothing else could do it.  We all know this in the back of our heads, but those of atheists/agnostics have been swayed by other humans.  As I've stated, the secular or atheist scientists who are making up stuff to fit evolutionary thinking, history and ToE are the ones using imagination and fantasies.  For example, they claim the law of physics did not apply during singularity.
> 
> It's funny you said, "nothing is lower."  Those who are down in the dregs without faith in the higher power do not know how to pull themselves out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no reason to accept that any of the human inventions of the gods are required to account for the existence of space and time.
> 
> Can you provide a single, rational reason why your gods are required as the cause of existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Space and time did not exist before the bang ..
> 
> A low logic answer there
> 
> Only GOD existed
> 
> Again this formula is how it cannot work
> 
> Space and time theory always and always before the bang
> 
> 
> 1 represents this 1 thing that is always and always
> 
> 1111111111-10 million- 5 trillion- 1 million trillion
> 
> That formula is that theory and the proof of the explosion and expansion afterwards
> 
> See to make that 1 thing change something had to be added FROM NOTHING
> 
> So back to square one
> 
> The whole universe began from nothing
> 
> That start proves the supernatural
> God
> 
> Then check the works and the plan can be seen
> 
> Humans to be like gods
> 
> Humans made in gods image
> 
> To become gods of the universe
> 
> To harness all the power of the universe and black holes
> 
> Without logic one is blind to understand
> 
> The snake handlers got drunk in the spirit that produced a block against the snakes poison
> 
> So now we have learned how the immune system can save us from
> Cancer
> 
> So there will be a movement to help cancer by getting drunk in the spirit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your unsupported, uncorroborated claims are best appended with
> 
> ".... because I say so",
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Petitio Principii*
> 
> "God wouldn't let us believe in Him if He didn't exist."
Click to expand...

Yes. How God set up our immune system is the key here

If we don't believe he slaps us down with a weaker immune system


----------



## GreenAndBlue

alang1216 said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Modern science has now proven that abortion is murder of a human being
> 
> Yep atheists scientists tries to cover that science up
> 
> 
> 
> Science can say something has died, it cannot say something has been murdered.  Murder is a religious, moral, or legal question that science can't answer.
Click to expand...


Wrong 

Science says the fetus has a heartbeat early in pregnancy and has its own DNA code

When killing when cant wait a few weeks that is killing for greed

That is murder for greed   Very immoral.


----------



## Hollie

GreenAndBlue said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, there is a higher power.  This would be REQUIRED to create space, time and the universe.  Nothing else could do it.  We all know this in the back of our heads, but those of atheists/agnostics have been swayed by other humans.  As I've stated, the secular or atheist scientists who are making up stuff to fit evolutionary thinking, history and ToE are the ones using imagination and fantasies.  For example, they claim the law of physics did not apply during singularity.
> 
> It's funny you said, "nothing is lower."  Those who are down in the dregs without faith in the higher power do not know how to pull themselves out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason to accept that any of the human inventions of the gods are required to account for the existence of space and time.
> 
> Can you provide a single, rational reason why your gods are required as the cause of existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Space and time did not exist before the bang ..
> 
> A low logic answer there
> 
> Only GOD existed
> 
> Again this formula is how it cannot work
> 
> Space and time theory always and always before the bang
> 
> 
> 1 represents this 1 thing that is always and always
> 
> 1111111111-10 million- 5 trillion- 1 million trillion
> 
> That formula is that theory and the proof of the explosion and expansion afterwards
> 
> See to make that 1 thing change something had to be added FROM NOTHING
> 
> So back to square one
> 
> The whole universe began from nothing
> 
> That start proves the supernatural
> God
> 
> Then check the works and the plan can be seen
> 
> Humans to be like gods
> 
> Humans made in gods image
> 
> To become gods of the universe
> 
> To harness all the power of the universe and black holes
> 
> Without logic one is blind to understand
> 
> The snake handlers got drunk in the spirit that produced a block against the snakes poison
> 
> So now we have learned how the immune system can save us from
> Cancer
> 
> So there will be a movement to help cancer by getting drunk in the spirit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your unsupported, uncorroborated claims are best appended with
> 
> ".... because I say so",
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Petitio Principii*
> 
> "God wouldn't let us believe in Him if He didn't exist."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. How God set up our immune system is the key here
> 
> If we don't believe he slaps us down with a weaker immune system
Click to expand...


It’s pretty cool that the gods set up the cancer cell that slaps down our immune system.

Those gods, they’re such kidders.


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Hollie said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong again and again.  Not just looney tunes.  God and Genesis as the supernatural are not superstition.  In fact, God warns us against believing in man-made superstitions, fortune tellers, mediums and the like.  If the very nature of humankind and science is to learn and explore, then why do they not explore God and Genesis?  This was done before the 1850s.  _* Why have they eliminated the main argument against secular science and evolution based on false claims?*_
> 
> I know I won't get an answer to my difficult questions for your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fantasies to Suit Your Fancy*
> 
> There is nothing lower than imagining that believing in a Higher Power makes you above the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, there is a higher power.  This would be REQUIRED to create space, time and the universe.  Nothing else could do it.  We all know this in the back of our heads, but those of atheists/agnostics have been swayed by other humans.  As I've stated, the secular or atheist scientists who are making up stuff to fit evolutionary thinking, history and ToE are the ones using imagination and fantasies.  For example, they claim the law of physics did not apply during singularity.
> 
> It's funny you said, "nothing is lower."  Those who are down in the dregs without faith in the higher power do not know how to pull themselves out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no reason to accept that any of the human inventions of the gods are required to account for the existence of space and time.
> 
> Can you provide a single, rational reason why your gods are required as the cause of existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Space and time did not exist before the bang ..
> 
> A low logic answer there
> 
> Only GOD existed
> 
> Again this formula is how it cannot work
> 
> Space and time theory always and always before the bang
> 
> 
> 1 represents this 1 thing that is always and always
> 
> 1111111111-10 million- 5 trillion- 1 million trillion
> 
> That formula is that theory and the proof of the explosion and expansion afterwards
> 
> See to make that 1 thing change something had to be added FROM NOTHING
> 
> So back to square one
> 
> The whole universe began from nothing
> 
> That start proves the supernatural
> God
> 
> Then check the works and the plan can be seen
> 
> Humans to be like gods
> 
> Humans made in gods image
> 
> To become gods of the universe
> 
> To harness all the power of the universe and black holes
> 
> Without logic one is blind to understand
> 
> The snake handlers got drunk in the spirit that produced a block against the snakes poison
> 
> So now we have learned how the immune system can save us from
> Cancer
> 
> So there will be a movement to help cancer by getting drunk in the spirit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your unsupported, uncorroborated claims are best appended with
> 
> ".... because I say so",
Click to expand...



Logic is what finds the truth


----------



## Hollie

GreenAndBlue said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Fantasies to Suit Your Fancy*
> 
> There is nothing lower than imagining that believing in a Higher Power makes you above the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, there is a higher power.  This would be REQUIRED to create space, time and the universe.  Nothing else could do it.  We all know this in the back of our heads, but those of atheists/agnostics have been swayed by other humans.  As I've stated, the secular or atheist scientists who are making up stuff to fit evolutionary thinking, history and ToE are the ones using imagination and fantasies.  For example, they claim the law of physics did not apply during singularity.
> 
> It's funny you said, "nothing is lower."  Those who are down in the dregs without faith in the higher power do not know how to pull themselves out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no reason to accept that any of the human inventions of the gods are required to account for the existence of space and time.
> 
> Can you provide a single, rational reason why your gods are required as the cause of existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Space and time did not exist before the bang ..
> 
> A low logic answer there
> 
> Only GOD existed
> 
> Again this formula is how it cannot work
> 
> Space and time theory always and always before the bang
> 
> 
> 1 represents this 1 thing that is always and always
> 
> 1111111111-10 million- 5 trillion- 1 million trillion
> 
> That formula is that theory and the proof of the explosion and expansion afterwards
> 
> See to make that 1 thing change something had to be added FROM NOTHING
> 
> So back to square one
> 
> The whole universe began from nothing
> 
> That start proves the supernatural
> God
> 
> Then check the works and the plan can be seen
> 
> Humans to be like gods
> 
> Humans made in gods image
> 
> To become gods of the universe
> 
> To harness all the power of the universe and black holes
> 
> Without logic one is blind to understand
> 
> The snake handlers got drunk in the spirit that produced a block against the snakes poison
> 
> So now we have learned how the immune system can save us from
> Cancer
> 
> So there will be a movement to help cancer by getting drunk in the spirit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your unsupported, uncorroborated claims are best appended with
> 
> ".... because I say so",
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Logic is what finds the truth
Click to expand...


Fear and superstition is what shields you from the truth.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, there is a higher power.  This would be REQUIRED to create space, time and the universe.  Nothing else could do it.  We all know this in the back of our heads, but those of atheists/agnostics have been swayed by other humans.  As I've stated, the secular or atheist scientists who are making up stuff to fit evolutionary thinking, history and ToE are the ones using imagination and fantasies.  For example, they claim the law of physics did not apply during singularity.
> 
> It's funny you said, "nothing is lower."  Those who are down in the dregs without faith in the higher power do not know how to pull themselves out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason to accept that any of the human inventions of the gods are required to account for the existence of space and time.
> 
> Can you provide a single, rational reason why your gods are required as the cause of existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Space and time did not exist before the bang ..
> 
> A low logic answer there
> 
> Only GOD existed
> 
> Again this formula is how it cannot work
> 
> Space and time theory always and always before the bang
> 
> 
> 1 represents this 1 thing that is always and always
> 
> 1111111111-10 million- 5 trillion- 1 million trillion
> 
> That formula is that theory and the proof of the explosion and expansion afterwards
> 
> See to make that 1 thing change something had to be added FROM NOTHING
> 
> So back to square one
> 
> The whole universe began from nothing
> 
> That start proves the supernatural
> God
> 
> Then check the works and the plan can be seen
> 
> Humans to be like gods
> 
> Humans made in gods image
> 
> To become gods of the universe
> 
> To harness all the power of the universe and black holes
> 
> Without logic one is blind to understand
> 
> The snake handlers got drunk in the spirit that produced a block against the snakes poison
> 
> So now we have learned how the immune system can save us from
> Cancer
> 
> So there will be a movement to help cancer by getting drunk in the spirit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your unsupported, uncorroborated claims are best appended with
> 
> ".... because I say so",
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Logic is what finds the truth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fear and superstition is what shields you from the truth.
Click to expand...

And governmental control and legal manipulation is what shields you from facing the TRUTH.


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Hollie said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, there is a higher power.  This would be REQUIRED to create space, time and the universe.  Nothing else could do it.  We all know this in the back of our heads, but those of atheists/agnostics have been swayed by other humans.  As I've stated, the secular or atheist scientists who are making up stuff to fit evolutionary thinking, history and ToE are the ones using imagination and fantasies.  For example, they claim the law of physics did not apply during singularity.
> 
> It's funny you said, "nothing is lower."  Those who are down in the dregs without faith in the higher power do not know how to pull themselves out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason to accept that any of the human inventions of the gods are required to account for the existence of space and time.
> 
> Can you provide a single, rational reason why your gods are required as the cause of existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Space and time did not exist before the bang ..
> 
> A low logic answer there
> 
> Only GOD existed
> 
> Again this formula is how it cannot work
> 
> Space and time theory always and always before the bang
> 
> 
> 1 represents this 1 thing that is always and always
> 
> 1111111111-10 million- 5 trillion- 1 million trillion
> 
> That formula is that theory and the proof of the explosion and expansion afterwards
> 
> See to make that 1 thing change something had to be added FROM NOTHING
> 
> So back to square one
> 
> The whole universe began from nothing
> 
> That start proves the supernatural
> God
> 
> Then check the works and the plan can be seen
> 
> Humans to be like gods
> 
> Humans made in gods image
> 
> To become gods of the universe
> 
> To harness all the power of the universe and black holes
> 
> Without logic one is blind to understand
> 
> The snake handlers got drunk in the spirit that produced a block against the snakes poison
> 
> So now we have learned how the immune system can save us from
> Cancer
> 
> So there will be a movement to help cancer by getting drunk in the spirit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your unsupported, uncorroborated claims are best appended with
> 
> ".... because I say so",
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Logic is what finds the truth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fear and superstition is what shields you from the truth.
Click to expand...


Learn how the immune system works and stop being a foolish loser


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason to accept that any of the human inventions of the gods are required to account for the existence of space and time.
> 
> Can you provide a single, rational reason why your gods are required as the cause of existence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Space and time did not exist before the bang ..
> 
> A low logic answer there
> 
> Only GOD existed
> 
> Again this formula is how it cannot work
> 
> Space and time theory always and always before the bang
> 
> 
> 1 represents this 1 thing that is always and always
> 
> 1111111111-10 million- 5 trillion- 1 million trillion
> 
> That formula is that theory and the proof of the explosion and expansion afterwards
> 
> See to make that 1 thing change something had to be added FROM NOTHING
> 
> So back to square one
> 
> The whole universe began from nothing
> 
> That start proves the supernatural
> God
> 
> Then check the works and the plan can be seen
> 
> Humans to be like gods
> 
> Humans made in gods image
> 
> To become gods of the universe
> 
> To harness all the power of the universe and black holes
> 
> Without logic one is blind to understand
> 
> The snake handlers got drunk in the spirit that produced a block against the snakes poison
> 
> So now we have learned how the immune system can save us from
> Cancer
> 
> So there will be a movement to help cancer by getting drunk in the spirit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your unsupported, uncorroborated claims are best appended with
> 
> ".... because I say so",
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Logic is what finds the truth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fear and superstition is what shields you from the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And governmental control and legal manipulation is what shields you from facing the TRUTH.
Click to expand...


And silly conspiracy theories make you quite paranoid.


----------



## Hollie

GreenAndBlue said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason to accept that any of the human inventions of the gods are required to account for the existence of space and time.
> 
> Can you provide a single, rational reason why your gods are required as the cause of existence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Space and time did not exist before the bang ..
> 
> A low logic answer there
> 
> Only GOD existed
> 
> Again this formula is how it cannot work
> 
> Space and time theory always and always before the bang
> 
> 
> 1 represents this 1 thing that is always and always
> 
> 1111111111-10 million- 5 trillion- 1 million trillion
> 
> That formula is that theory and the proof of the explosion and expansion afterwards
> 
> See to make that 1 thing change something had to be added FROM NOTHING
> 
> So back to square one
> 
> The whole universe began from nothing
> 
> That start proves the supernatural
> God
> 
> Then check the works and the plan can be seen
> 
> Humans to be like gods
> 
> Humans made in gods image
> 
> To become gods of the universe
> 
> To harness all the power of the universe and black holes
> 
> Without logic one is blind to understand
> 
> The snake handlers got drunk in the spirit that produced a block against the snakes poison
> 
> So now we have learned how the immune system can save us from
> Cancer
> 
> So there will be a movement to help cancer by getting drunk in the spirit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your unsupported, uncorroborated claims are best appended with
> 
> ".... because I say so",
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Logic is what finds the truth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fear and superstition is what shields you from the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn how the immune system works and stop being a foolish loser
Click to expand...


Learn how the gods created the immune system to be fragile in comparison to the bacteria and viruses they created. 

It proves the gods have a sense of humor.


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Hollie said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Space and time did not exist before the bang ..
> 
> A low logic answer there
> 
> Only GOD existed
> 
> Again this formula is how it cannot work
> 
> Space and time theory always and always before the bang
> 
> 
> 1 represents this 1 thing that is always and always
> 
> 1111111111-10 million- 5 trillion- 1 million trillion
> 
> That formula is that theory and the proof of the explosion and expansion afterwards
> 
> See to make that 1 thing change
> 
> 
> 
> something had to be added FROM NOTHING
> 
> So back to square one
> 
> The whole universe began from nothing
> 
> That start proves the supernatural
> God
> 
> Then check the works and the plan can be seen
> 
> Humans to be like gods
> 
> Humans made in gods image
> 
> To become gods of the universe
> 
> To harness all the power of the universe and black holes
> 
> Without logic one is blind to understand
> 
> The snake handlers got drunk in the spirit that produced a block against the snakes poison
> 
> So now we have learned how the immune system can save us from
> Cancer
> 
> So there will be a movement to help cancer by getting drunk in the spirit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your unsupported, uncorroborated claims are best appended with
> 
> ".... because I say so",
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Logic is what finds the truth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fear and superstition is what shields you from the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn how the immune system works and stop being a foolish loser
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn how the gods created the immune system to be fragile in comparison to the bacteria and viruses they created.
> 
> It proves the gods have a sense of humor.
Click to expand...


Why did the number 1 atheist for 50 yrs change to a believer? 

He changed because of science evidence 

UK. Anthony Flew.


----------



## bripat9643

GreenAndBlue said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your unsupported, uncorroborated claims are best appended with
> 
> ".... because I say so",
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logic is what finds the truth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fear and superstition is what shields you from the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn how the immune system works and stop being a foolish loser
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn how the gods created the immune system to be fragile in comparison to the bacteria and viruses they created.
> 
> It proves the gods have a sense of humor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did the number 1 atheist for 50 yrs change to a believer?
> 
> He changed because of science evidence
> 
> UK. Anthony Flew.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "the number one atheist."


----------



## GreenAndBlue

bripat9643 said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logic is what finds the truth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fear and superstition is what shields you from the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn how the immune system works and stop being a foolish loser
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn how the gods created the immune system to be fragile in comparison to the bacteria and viruses they created.
> 
> It proves the gods have a sense of humor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did the number 1 atheist for 50 yrs change to a believer?
> 
> He changed because of science evidence
> 
> UK. Anthony Flew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as "the number one atheist."[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> He got that title because of 50 years
> 
> The top atheist
> 
> The number 1 atheist
> 
> The greatest atheist
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

GreenAndBlue said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your unsupported, uncorroborated claims are best appended with
> 
> ".... because I say so",
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logic is what finds the truth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fear and superstition is what shields you from the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn how the immune system works and stop being a foolish loser
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn how the gods created the immune system to be fragile in comparison to the bacteria and viruses they created.
> 
> It proves the gods have a sense of humor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did the number 1 atheist for 50 yrs change to a believer?
> 
> He changed because of science evidence
> 
> UK. Anthony Flew.
Click to expand...


Why would that matter?


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Space and time did not exist before the bang ..
> 
> A low logic answer there
> 
> Only GOD existed
> 
> Again this formula is how it cannot work
> 
> Space and time theory always and always before the bang
> 
> 
> 1 represents this 1 thing that is always and always
> 
> 1111111111-10 million- 5 trillion- 1 million trillion
> 
> That formula is that theory and the proof of the explosion and expansion afterwards
> 
> See to make that 1 thing change something had to be added FROM NOTHING
> 
> So back to square one
> 
> The whole universe began from nothing
> 
> That start proves the supernatural
> God
> 
> Then check the works and the plan can be seen
> 
> Humans to be like gods
> 
> Humans made in gods image
> 
> To become gods of the universe
> 
> To harness all the power of the universe and black holes
> 
> Without logic one is blind to understand
> 
> The snake handlers got drunk in the spirit that produced a block against the snakes poison
> 
> So now we have learned how the immune system can save us from
> Cancer
> 
> So there will be a movement to help cancer by getting drunk in the spirit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your unsupported, uncorroborated claims are best appended with
> 
> ".... because I say so",
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Logic is what finds the truth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fear and superstition is what shields you from the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And governmental control and legal manipulation is what shields you from facing the TRUTH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And silly conspiracy theories make you quite paranoid.
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite --- the Ten Commandments make you squirm and you'd give anything to be able to disregard them comfortably. If that isn't paranoia...


----------



## GreenAndBlue

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your unsupported, uncorroborated claims are best appended with
> 
> ".... because I say so",
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logic is what finds the truth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fear and superstition is what shields you from the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And governmental control and legal manipulation is what shields you from facing the TRUTH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And silly conspiracy theories make you quite paranoid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite the opposite --- the Ten Commandments make you squirm and you'd give anything to be able to disregard them comfortably. If that isn't paranoia...
Click to expand...



The Ten Commandments brings progress for each person of a nation from working correctly together


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your unsupported, uncorroborated claims are best appended with
> 
> ".... because I say so",
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logic is what finds the truth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fear and superstition is what shields you from the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And governmental control and legal manipulation is what shields you from facing the TRUTH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And silly conspiracy theories make you quite paranoid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite the opposite --- the Ten Commandments make you squirm and you'd give anything to be able to disregard them comfortably. If that isn't paranoia...
Click to expand...


You're completely wrong. I think the ten commandments overall represent worthy goals as to how one can live their life. However, there is no reason to believe that one or more gods ever wrote the commandments. What a shame the religious folks in these threads (and throughout the history of Christianity), don't abide by what's in your books.  

Now, to explore the bibles, I know there are many references to love and compassion, but there is a single fatal problem with the NT. That is, that Jesus does not explain why his doctrines are good for mankind, he commands obedience to them and levies a system of rewards or punishments based on adherence and conformity. Jesus doesn't say, "Be good to one another because you are each precious," Jesus states, "Believe and obey and you will see heaven-- doubt and disobey and you will earn eternal damnation".


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logic is what finds the truth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fear and superstition is what shields you from the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And governmental control and legal manipulation is what shields you from facing the TRUTH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And silly conspiracy theories make you quite paranoid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite the opposite --- the Ten Commandments make you squirm and you'd give anything to be able to disregard them comfortably. If that isn't paranoia...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're completely wrong. I think the ten commandments overall represent worthy goals as to how one can live their life. However, there is no reason to believe that one or more gods ever wrote the commandments. What a shame the religious folks in these threads (and throughout the history of Christianity), don't abide by what's in your books.
> 
> Now, to explore the bibles, I know there are many references to love and compassion, but there is a single fatal problem with the NT. That is, that Jesus does not explain why his doctrines are good for mankind, he commands obedience to them and levies a system of rewards or punishments based on adherence and conformity. Jesus doesn't say, "Be good to one another because you are each precious," Jesus states, "Believe and obey and you will see heaven-- doubt and disobey and you will earn eternal damnation".
Click to expand...



Wrong Dead Wrong


A bridge cannot be built unless all abilities of humans are used

To bring humans together to make that great progress. The Ten Commandments and Christian laws greatly helped the success

Christians has been given the highest logic ability which then helps them to control the world

And they brought groups out of the misery of the stone age


----------



## Hollie

GreenAndBlue said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fear and superstition is what shields you from the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> And governmental control and legal manipulation is what shields you from facing the TRUTH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And silly conspiracy theories make you quite paranoid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite the opposite --- the Ten Commandments make you squirm and you'd give anything to be able to disregard them comfortably. If that isn't paranoia...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're completely wrong. I think the ten commandments overall represent worthy goals as to how one can live their life. However, there is no reason to believe that one or more gods ever wrote the commandments. What a shame the religious folks in these threads (and throughout the history of Christianity), don't abide by what's in your books.
> 
> Now, to explore the bibles, I know there are many references to love and compassion, but there is a single fatal problem with the NT. That is, that Jesus does not explain why his doctrines are good for mankind, he commands obedience to them and levies a system of rewards or punishments based on adherence and conformity. Jesus doesn't say, "Be good to one another because you are each precious," Jesus states, "Believe and obey and you will see heaven-- doubt and disobey and you will earn eternal damnation".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong Dead Wrong
> 
> 
> A bridge cannot be built unless all abilities of humans are used
> 
> To bring humans together to make that great progress. The Ten Commandments and Christian laws greatly helped the success
> 
> Christians has been given the highest logic ability which then helps them to control the world
> 
> And they brought groups out of the misery of the stone age
Click to expand...


If you study the history of Christianity, you will see that Christians have neither the ability nor the wherewithal to control anything. 

Christianity in Europe was a major influence which prolonged the Dark Ages.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.  And who or what created the door?
> 
> 
> 
> met·a·phor
> /ˈmedəˌfôr,ˈmedəˌfər/
> _noun_
> 
> a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
> "her poetry depends on suggestion and metaphor"
> synonyms: figure of speech, figurative expression, image, trope, allegory, parable, analogy, comparison, symbol, emblem, word painting, word picture;
> _literary_conceit
> a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract.
> "the amounts of money being lost by the company were enough to make it a *metaphor for* an industry that was teetering"
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Otay.  So are you saying our universe did not begin and there was something else before that?  I have not heard of an acceptable science theory of this.  BBT still rules the secular/atheist science world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did God begin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you admitting that God exists now?  Have you changed your mind and have faith in God?  This would be the first step to changing your worldview and life.
> 
> God did not begin.  He is beginningless, eternal and outside the realm of materialism.  He is metaphysical or spiritual.  He would also have to be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, all powerful and more in order to create space time and the universe the way it exists today.  It would be impossible for it to happen randomly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> “.... because I say so”.
> 
> I think it’s worth pointing out that you have ascribed to your gods the same attributes that men have ascribed to the gods that have come and gone before your gods.
> 
> Consider this historically accurate and defendable argument:
> 
> Every god, with time, is swept away and looked upon as myth.
> 
> Where is the worship of Osiris? Of Isis, worshipped for 5,000 years. Where is Zeus, Odin, Jupiter? Where are the Druids, now as silent as Stonehenge, as cold and as silent as the Sphinx.
> 
> Dust, all. Antiquities. History suggests it will be also with Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu.
> 
> It’s already happening, and as science makes them less relevant, we see the rise in fundamentalism. Why are fundamentalist religionists so reactionary? Because the adherents sense all around them the growing tide of humanism. The hyper-religious in these threads defame the non-believers as vile and godless and loathsome because… well, because as time goes on we do grow more godless. And as time goes by, and the gods don’t return to this earth, as the gods don’t prove salvation, we grow yet further away from fantasy and fiction. And that terrifies the hyper-religious. They know full well there is only faith and belief to support the “belief”. As mankind grows in scientific knowledge, those things once ascribed to the gods are taken away, leaving the gods to sit and judge, nothing more, and even of that, only the dead, a state of being no one ever returns from to testify whether or not the claims are true.
Click to expand...

*Plutocratic Parasites Are the New Gods Being Preached About*

Just like the superstition that inventors shouldn't take personal credit for their vital contribution because they are merely the instruments of what God makes them create, the reigning materialist superstition is that Capital creates the wealth by financing inventors, who would be infertile without the divine Capitalists.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Hollie said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Space and time did not exist before the bang ..
> 
> A low logic answer there
> 
> Only GOD existed
> 
> Again this formula is how it cannot work
> 
> Space and time theory always and always before the bang
> 
> 
> 1 represents this 1 thing that is always and always
> 
> 1111111111-10 million- 5 trillion- 1 million trillion
> 
> That formula is that theory and the proof of the explosion and expansion afterwards
> 
> See to make that 1 thing change something had to be added FROM NOTHING
> 
> So back to square one
> 
> The whole universe began from nothing
> 
> That start proves the supernatural
> God
> 
> Then check the works and the plan can be seen
> 
> Humans to be like gods
> 
> Humans made in gods image
> 
> To become gods of the universe
> 
> To harness all the power of the universe and black holes
> 
> Without logic one is blind to understand
> 
> The snake handlers got drunk in the spirit that produced a block against the snakes poison
> 
> So now we have learned how the immune system can save us from
> Cancer
> 
> So there will be a movement to help cancer by getting drunk in the spirit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your unsupported, uncorroborated claims are best appended with
> 
> ".... because I say so",
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Logic is what finds the truth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fear and superstition is what shields you from the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn how the immune system works and stop being a foolish loser
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn how the gods created the immune system to be fragile in comparison to the bacteria and viruses they created.
> 
> It proves the gods have a sense of humor.
Click to expand...

*"Clean Air" Is the Most Toxic of All and Always Has Been*

Actually—and this is how totally wrong are the ideas we are told to believe in—man-made "pollution" is the strongest enemy of bacteria, viruses, and epidemics.  Because of the way ideas get distorted, an intelligent person should question even the moderate starting point of those ideas, the one that is accepted by everybody.  That's how they pacify us and get their mindless followers hooked. 

 There's little evidence for the platitude of "good ideas going wrong," so go back to the very basic assumptions preached at the beginning by such deceptive and pushy thinkers.  Therefore "pollution" should be replaced by a neutral term, such as "byproducts."

Likewise, power doesn't corrupt; corrupt people seek power; they only pretend to be honorable when they start out. In order to maintain the established authoritarianism, we are told by those in power that if we fight back against them, we'll only become worse than them eventually.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Hollie said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And governmental control and legal manipulation is what shields you from facing the TRUTH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And silly conspiracy theories make you quite paranoid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite the opposite --- the Ten Commandments make you squirm and you'd give anything to be able to disregard them comfortably. If that isn't paranoia...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're completely wrong. I think the ten commandments overall represent worthy goals as to how one can live their life. However, there is no reason to believe that one or more gods ever wrote the commandments. What a shame the religious folks in these threads (and throughout the history of Christianity), don't abide by what's in your books.
> 
> Now, to explore the bibles, I know there are many references to love and compassion, but there is a single fatal problem with the NT. That is, that Jesus does not explain why his doctrines are good for mankind, he commands obedience to them and levies a system of rewards or punishments based on adherence and conformity. Jesus doesn't say, "Be good to one another because you are each precious," Jesus states, "Believe and obey and you will see heaven-- doubt and disobey and you will earn eternal damnation".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong Dead Wrong
> 
> 
> A bridge cannot be built unless all abilities of humans are used
> 
> To bring humans together to make that great progress. The Ten Commandments and Christian laws greatly helped the success
> 
> Christians has been given the highest logic ability which then helps them to control the world
> 
> And they brought groups out of the misery of the stone age
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you study the history of Christianity, you will see that Christians have neither the ability nor the wherewithal to control anything.
> 
> Christianity in Europe was a major influence which prolonged the Dark Ages.
Click to expand...

*If We Have to Do It on Our Own, So Must These Spoiled Mediocrities*

Christianity, like today's exclusivist political class, was just a branch of the hereditary tyranny that we are not allowed to see in our time only because of the meaningless lack of actual titles. Practically all the hierarchy came from the Nobility With No Ability. 
 Of course, there are no Coats of Arms in America because richkids are unpatriotic sissyboys who get their Daddies to get them out of ever having to fight for our country. But as long as trust funds and inheritances exist, we will drift back to the Dark Ages.  Pathetic wannabe Preppies are no-talent bootlickers who hate their Daddies for not getting rich and spoiling them.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> And governmental control and legal manipulation is what shields you from facing the TRUTH.


No freak, the evidence shows us the truth.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> the Ten Commandments make you squirm


You just accussd him of of being a murderer and a thief, you sniveling little puke.


----------



## basquebromance

85 percent of the world admits knowing little to nothing about science, according to American multinational conglomerate 3M's second annual State of Science Index


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Hollie said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And governmental control and legal manipulation is what shields you from facing the TRUTH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And silly conspiracy theories make you quite paranoid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite the opposite --- the Ten Commandments make you squirm and you'd give anything to be able to disregard them comfortably. If that isn't paranoia...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're completely wrong. I think the ten commandments overall represent worthy goals as to how one can live their life. However, there is no reason to believe that one or more gods ever wrote the commandments. What a shame the religious folks in these threads (and throughout the history of Christianity), don't abide by what's in your books.
> 
> Now, to explore the bibles, I know there are many references to love and compassion, but there is a single fatal problem with the NT. That is, that Jesus does not explain why his doctrines are good for mankind, he commands obedience to them and levies a system of rewards or punishments based on adherence and conformity. Jesus doesn't say, "Be good to one another because you are each precious," Jesus states, "Believe and obey and you will see heaven-- doubt and disobey and you will earn eternal damnation".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong Dead Wrong
> 
> 
> A bridge cannot be built unless all abilities of humans are used
> 
> To bring humans together to make that great progress. The Ten Commandments and Christian laws greatly helped the success
> 
> Christians has been given the highest logic ability which then helps them to control the world
> 
> And they brought groups out of the misery of the stone age
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you study the history of Christianity, you will see that Christians have neither the ability nor the wherewithal to control anything.
> 
> Christianity in Europe was a major influence which prolonged the Dark Ages.
Click to expand...


Wrong

The printing press got invented

Then the books on religion could be read and the wise of the world flocked to the bible and the wise together beat all other nations in war and progress


----------



## james bond

The story with the Bible has always been about finding contradictions from the low brow internet atheists.  After all, the contradictions came to evolution right away and was shown to be false as Dawin was wrong and it lead to social Darwinism, Eugenics, Hitler, the Holocaust and Planned Parenthood.  Satan had his own book and could not have done it better.  However, people continue to fall for it as natural selection is used for microevolution and falsity becomes the truth.  Part is true, so the rest is true.  That's a fallacy in itself.  Anyway, the Bible has not been contradicted.  It is infallible as God's word is infallible.  Thus, how can the non-believers be anything else but wrong?  Atheist science is a lie and wrong, wrong, wrong.  In a way, it is prophecized that there will be _global warming_ when the entire Earth is destroyed by fire and the lamb shall come again.  The irony.

"The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together;
and a little child shall lead them." Isaiah 11:6

"And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”
And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth." Revelation 5:5-6

Revelation 5 continues with John the Apostle noticing there is a scroll in the right hand of the man on the throne.  The scroll has writing on the inside and is sealed with seven seals.  Only one lamb is worthy to receive the scroll and break the seals.

The scroll could be our universe as its seven seals are broken and the lamb comes again to take away the sins of the world through fire this time.

And like with the flood, there will be survivors and the rest, the spiritually dead, will perish in the fire.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The story with the Bible has always been about finding contradictions from the low brow internet atheists.  After all, the contradictions came to evolution right away and was shown to be false as Dawin was wrong and it lead to social Darwinism, Eugenics, Hitler, the Holocaust and Planned Parenthood.  Satan had his own book and could not have done it better.  However, people continue to fall for it as natural selection is used for microevolution and falsity becomes the truth.  Part is true, so the rest is true.  That's a fallacy in itself.  Anyway, the Bible has not been contradicted.  It is infallible as God's word is infallible.  Thus, how can the non-believers be anything else but wrong?  Atheist science is a lie and wrong, wrong, wrong.  In a way, it is prophecized that there will be _global warming_ when the entire Earth is destroyed by fire and the lamb shall come again.  The irony.
> 
> "The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
> and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
> and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together;
> and a little child shall lead them." Isaiah 11:6
> 
> "And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”
> And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth." Revelation 5:5-6
> 
> Revelation 5 continues with John the Apostle noticing there is a scroll in the right hand of the man on the throne.  The scroll has writing on the inside and is sealed with seven seals.  Only one lamb is worthy to receive the scroll and break the seals.
> 
> The scroll could be our universe as its seven seals are broken and the lamb comes again to take away the sins of the world through fire this time.
> 
> And like with the flood, there will be survivors and the rest, the spiritually dead, will perish in the fire.




You apparently took a great deal of time gathering as many clichés as you could find at your ID’iot / creation ministries. You rattle on about contradictions in biological evolution and how it is false yet, as usual, you are unable to offer a single relevant example.

Evolution is a theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). ID’iot / creationism asserts a _supernatural cause_ for existence Evolution is a theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). ID asserts a _supernatural cause_ at the git-go, and doesn't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of its own assertions:

A. If there is required an intelligent designer because existence displays a complex design, then doesn't the intelligent designer also require an intelligent designer to have designer it as well? (Translation: If your premise is: "X" needs a Designer because it's complicated, then the Designer needs a designer because it's even MORE complicated than "X", in order to have designed it in the first place.)

B. What are the characteristics of this "Designer"? Assume the "Designer" assertion is true -- why does this "Designer" become important at all? It may be long dead. It may have no vested interest. Is it at all demonstrable?

The fundie xtian attempt to conflate evolution and eugenics is classic dishonesty and misrepresentation spewed by the Christian fundie ministries. It’s all so stereotypically corrupt which defines the angry, self-hating fundies.


*CA002.1:  Social Darwinism.*

*Claim CA002.1:*

Darwinism leads to social Darwinism, the policy that the weak should be allowed to fail and die.

*Source:*

Morris, Henry M. 1985. _Scientific Creationism_. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 179.

*Response:*


This is an example of the naturalistic fallacy -- the argument that how things are implies how they ought to be. But "is" does not imply "ought." Evolution only tells how things are; it does not say how they should be.
The source of social Darwinism was not Darwin but Herbert Spencer and the tradition of Protestant nonconformism going back to Hobbes via Malthus. Spencer's ideas of evolution were Lamarckian. The only real connection between Darwinism and social Darwinism is the name.
Diverse political and religious ideas draw upon evolutionary biology, including ideas advocating greater cooperation.
Evolutionary theory shows us that the long-term survival of a species is strongly linked with its genetic variability. All Social Darwinist programs advocate minimizing genetic variability, thus reducing chances of long-term survival in the event of environmental change. An understanding of evolution should then rebuke any attempt at social Darwinism if the long-term survival of humanity is treated as a goal.
Eugenics and social Darwinian accounts are more often tied to the rise of the science of genetics than to evolutionary theory.
*Links:*

Wilkins, John, 1997. Evolution and philosophy: Does evolution make might right? Evolution and Philosophy: Social Darwinism


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The story with the Bible has always been about finding contradictions from the low brow internet atheists.  After all, the contradictions came to evolution right away and was shown to be false as Dawin was wrong and it lead to social Darwinism, Eugenics, Hitler, the Holocaust and Planned Parenthood.  Satan had his own book and could not have done it better.  However, people continue to fall for it as natural selection is used for microevolution and falsity becomes the truth.  Part is true, so the rest is true.  That's a fallacy in itself.  Anyway, the Bible has not been contradicted.  It is infallible as God's word is infallible.  Thus, how can the non-believers be anything else but wrong?  Atheist science is a lie and wrong, wrong, wrong.  In a way, it is prophecized that there will be _global warming_ when the entire Earth is destroyed by fire and the lamb shall come again.  The irony.
> 
> "The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
> and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
> and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together;
> and a little child shall lead them." Isaiah 11:6
> 
> "And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”
> And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth." Revelation 5:5-6
> 
> Revelation 5 continues with John the Apostle noticing there is a scroll in the right hand of the man on the throne.  The scroll has writing on the inside and is sealed with seven seals.  Only one lamb is worthy to receive the scroll and break the seals.
> 
> The scroll could be our universe as its seven seals are broken and the lamb comes again to take away the sins of the world through fire this time.
> 
> And like with the flood, there will be survivors and the rest, the spiritually dead, will perish in the fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You apparently took a great deal of time gathering as many clichés as you could find at your ID’iot / creation ministries. You rattle on about contradictions in biological evolution and how it is false yet, as usual, you are unable to offer a single relevant example.
> 
> Evolution is a theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). ID’iot / creationism asserts a _supernatural cause_ for existence Evolution is a theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). ID asserts a _supernatural cause_ at the git-go, and doesn't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of its own assertions:
> 
> A. If there is required an intelligent designer because existence displays a complex design, then doesn't the intelligent designer also require an intelligent designer to have designer it as well? (Translation: If your premise is: "X" needs a Designer because it's complicated, then the Designer needs a designer because it's even MORE complicated than "X", in order to have designed it in the first place.)
> 
> B. What are the characteristics of this "Designer"? Assume the "Designer" assertion is true -- why does this "Designer" become important at all? It may be long dead. It may have no vested interest. Is it at all demonstrable?
> 
> The fundie xtian attempt to conflate evolution and eugenics is classic dishonesty and misrepresentation spewed by the Christian fundie ministries. It’s all so stereotypically corrupt which defines the angry, self-hating fundies.
> 
> 
> *CA002.1:  Social Darwinism.*
> 
> *Claim CA002.1:*
> 
> Darwinism leads to social Darwinism, the policy that the weak should be allowed to fail and die.
> 
> *Source:*
> 
> Morris, Henry M. 1985. _Scientific Creationism_. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 179.
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> 
> This is an example of the naturalistic fallacy -- the argument that how things are implies how they ought to be. But "is" does not imply "ought." Evolution only tells how things are; it does not say how they should be.
> The source of social Darwinism was not Darwin but Herbert Spencer and the tradition of Protestant nonconformism going back to Hobbes via Malthus. Spencer's ideas of evolution were Lamarckian. The only real connection between Darwinism and social Darwinism is the name.
> Diverse political and religious ideas draw upon evolutionary biology, including ideas advocating greater cooperation.
> Evolutionary theory shows us that the long-term survival of a species is strongly linked with its genetic variability. All Social Darwinist programs advocate minimizing genetic variability, thus reducing chances of long-term survival in the event of environmental change. An understanding of evolution should then rebuke any attempt at social Darwinism if the long-term survival of humanity is treated as a goal.
> Eugenics and social Darwinian accounts are more often tied to the rise of the science of genetics than to evolutionary theory.
> *Links:*
> 
> Wilkins, John, 1997. Evolution and philosophy: Does evolution make might right? Evolution and Philosophy: Social Darwinism
Click to expand...


I didn't get it from Henry Morris.  This is one of the conclusions I got from reading Darwin and learning about what happened afterward.  This is no harmless fallacy nor a contradiction.  This is what Darwin basically was saying in his second book.  You do not get it from secular science as they cover up their lies.  They were part of the racism.  The only thing they had evidence for was microevolution and they took it to macroevolution and applied it to humans.   Darwin was not able to figure out how to get the long-time.  He also did not find the transitional fossils, so thought his work was wrong.  Thus, he focused on the survival of the fittest which he got from Herbert Spencer and promptly put it in his book.  This is how evolution produced favored races which is what Spencer taught.  Prior to this, there was a history of racist thinking in science from Darwin's peers and his father's friends.  Men were superior to women and certain races were more evolved than others.  The racism is evident in his second book The Descent of Man.  He decided to focus on humans because he could not demonstrate how animals changed from one creature to another.  It still does not happen today.  We do not find transitional fossils, but instead find living fossils.  Thus, how could there have been a transition mutation?

However, focusing on humans was enough for another scientific best seller.  The rest they say is history.  "Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin’s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies. Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler’s government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitler’s administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the ‘superior race’. This required at the very least preventing the ‘inferior races’ from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latter’s gene pool. The ‘superior race’ belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin’s original ‘survival of the fittest’ theory. This philosophy culminated in the ‘final solution’, the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged as ‘inferior races’."  It's no wonder that a science book became such a popular best seller.  Why were the Jews picked out by Hitler?  Can you tell me that?  He had others that he wanted to get rid of, too.  This is your science history, so you should be able to explain.  Hitler wasn't the only racist politician during the time.  There were others, so it influenced the world.  The ones who tried to save the Jews such as Oscar Schindler and Corrie ten Boom and her family were few in number.  Why did other countries remain isolationist and appeased Germany?  Did they believe only the strong survive and this was how the weak were weeded out? 

It's the ToE.  "The theory of evolution is based on individuals acquiring unique traits that enable those possessing the new traits to better survive adverse conditions compared to those who don’t possess them. Superior individuals will be more likely to survive and pass on these traits to their offspring so such traits will increase in number, while the ‘weaker’ individuals will eventually die off. If every member of a species were fully equal, natural selection would have nothing to select from, and evolution would cease for that species."

- Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust -


----------



## Manonthestreet

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logic is what finds the truth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fear and superstition is what shields you from the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And governmental control and legal manipulation is what shields you from facing the TRUTH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And silly conspiracy theories make you quite paranoid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite the opposite --- the Ten Commandments make you squirm and you'd give anything to be able to disregard them comfortably. If that isn't paranoia...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're completely wrong. I think the ten commandments overall represent worthy goals as to how one can live their life. However, there is no reason to believe that one or more gods ever wrote the commandments. What a shame the religious folks in these threads (and throughout the history of Christianity), don't abide by what's in your books.
> 
> Now, to explore the bibles, I know there are many references to love and compassion, but there is a single fatal problem with the NT. That is, that Jesus does not explain why his doctrines are good for mankind, he commands obedience to them and levies a system of rewards or punishments based on adherence and conformity. Jesus doesn't say, "Be good to one another because you are each precious," Jesus states, "Believe and obey and you will see heaven-- doubt and disobey and you will earn eternal damnation".
Click to expand...

JOHN 15:12 KJV "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you."


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Manonthestreet said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fear and superstition is what shields you from the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> And governmental control and legal manipulation is what shields you from facing the TRUTH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And silly conspiracy theories make you quite paranoid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite the opposite --- the Ten Commandments make you squirm and you'd give anything to be able to disregard them comfortably. If that isn't paranoia...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're completely wrong. I think the ten commandments overall represent worthy goals as to how one can live their life. However, there is no reason to believe that one or more gods ever wrote the commandments. What a shame the religious folks in these threads (and throughout the history of Christianity), don't abide by what's in your books.
> 
> Now, to explore the bibles, I know there are many references to love and compassion, but there is a single fatal problem with the NT. That is, that Jesus does not explain why his doctrines are good for mankind, he commands obedience to them and levies a system of rewards or punishments based on adherence and conformity. Jesus doesn't say, "Be good to one another because you are each precious," Jesus states, "Believe and obey and you will see heaven-- doubt and disobey and you will earn eternal damnation".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JOHN 15:12 KJV "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you."
Click to expand...



That part of the bible has been proven as the best way for progress for a nation 

But each person must do their own ability 

A low logic person must not vote


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The story with the Bible has always been about finding contradictions from the low brow internet atheists.  After all, the contradictions came to evolution right away and was shown to be false as Dawin was wrong and it lead to social Darwinism, Eugenics, Hitler, the Holocaust and Planned Parenthood.  Satan had his own book and could not have done it better.  However, people continue to fall for it as natural selection is used for microevolution and falsity becomes the truth.  Part is true, so the rest is true.  That's a fallacy in itself.  Anyway, the Bible has not been contradicted.  It is infallible as God's word is infallible.  Thus, how can the non-believers be anything else but wrong?  Atheist science is a lie and wrong, wrong, wrong.  In a way, it is prophecized that there will be _global warming_ when the entire Earth is destroyed by fire and the lamb shall come again.  The irony.
> 
> "The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
> and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
> and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together;
> and a little child shall lead them." Isaiah 11:6
> 
> "And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”
> And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth." Revelation 5:5-6
> 
> Revelation 5 continues with John the Apostle noticing there is a scroll in the right hand of the man on the throne.  The scroll has writing on the inside and is sealed with seven seals.  Only one lamb is worthy to receive the scroll and break the seals.
> 
> The scroll could be our universe as its seven seals are broken and the lamb comes again to take away the sins of the world through fire this time.
> 
> And like with the flood, there will be survivors and the rest, the spiritually dead, will perish in the fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You apparently took a great deal of time gathering as many clichés as you could find at your ID’iot / creation ministries. You rattle on about contradictions in biological evolution and how it is false yet, as usual, you are unable to offer a single relevant example.
> 
> Evolution is a theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). ID’iot / creationism asserts a _supernatural cause_ for existence Evolution is a theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). ID asserts a _supernatural cause_ at the git-go, and doesn't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of its own assertions:
> 
> A. If there is required an intelligent designer because existence displays a complex design, then doesn't the intelligent designer also require an intelligent designer to have designer it as well? (Translation: If your premise is: "X" needs a Designer because it's complicated, then the Designer needs a designer because it's even MORE complicated than "X", in order to have designed it in the first place.)
> 
> B. What are the characteristics of this "Designer"? Assume the "Designer" assertion is true -- why does this "Designer" become important at all? It may be long dead. It may have no vested interest. Is it at all demonstrable?
> 
> The fundie xtian attempt to conflate evolution and eugenics is classic dishonesty and misrepresentation spewed by the Christian fundie ministries. It’s all so stereotypically corrupt which defines the angry, self-hating fundies.
> 
> 
> *CA002.1:  Social Darwinism.*
> 
> *Claim CA002.1:*
> 
> Darwinism leads to social Darwinism, the policy that the weak should be allowed to fail and die.
> 
> *Source:*
> 
> Morris, Henry M. 1985. _Scientific Creationism_. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 179.
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> 
> This is an example of the naturalistic fallacy -- the argument that how things are implies how they ought to be. But "is" does not imply "ought." Evolution only tells how things are; it does not say how they should be.
> The source of social Darwinism was not Darwin but Herbert Spencer and the tradition of Protestant nonconformism going back to Hobbes via Malthus. Spencer's ideas of evolution were Lamarckian. The only real connection between Darwinism and social Darwinism is the name.
> Diverse political and religious ideas draw upon evolutionary biology, including ideas advocating greater cooperation.
> Evolutionary theory shows us that the long-term survival of a species is strongly linked with its genetic variability. All Social Darwinist programs advocate minimizing genetic variability, thus reducing chances of long-term survival in the event of environmental change. An understanding of evolution should then rebuke any attempt at social Darwinism if the long-term survival of humanity is treated as a goal.
> Eugenics and social Darwinian accounts are more often tied to the rise of the science of genetics than to evolutionary theory.
> *Links:*
> 
> Wilkins, John, 1997. Evolution and philosophy: Does evolution make might right? Evolution and Philosophy: Social Darwinism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't get it from Henry Morris.  This is one of the conclusions I got from reading Darwin and learning about what happened afterward.  This is no harmless fallacy nor a contradiction.  This is what Darwin basically was saying in his second book.  You do not get it from secular science as they cover up their lies.  They were part of the racism.  The only thing they had evidence for was microevolution and they took it to macroevolution and applied it to humans.   Darwin was not able to figure out how to get the long-time.  He also did not find the transitional fossils, so thought his work was wrong.  Thus, he focused on the survival of the fittest which he got from Herbert Spencer and promptly put it in his book.  This is how evolution produced favored races which is what Spencer taught.  Prior to this, there was a history of racist thinking in science from Darwin's peers and his father's friends.  Men were superior to women and certain races were more evolved than others.  The racism is evident in his second book The Descent of Man.  He decided to focus on humans because he could not demonstrate how animals changed from one creature to another.  It still does not happen today.  We do not find transitional fossils, but instead find living fossils.  Thus, how could there have been a transition mutation?
> 
> However, focusing on humans was enough for another scientific best seller.  The rest they say is history.  "Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin’s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies. Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler’s government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitler’s administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the ‘superior race’. This required at the very least preventing the ‘inferior races’ from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latter’s gene pool. The ‘superior race’ belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin’s original ‘survival of the fittest’ theory. This philosophy culminated in the ‘final solution’, the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged as ‘inferior races’."  It's no wonder that a science book became such a popular best seller.  Why were the Jews picked out by Hitler?  Can you tell me that?  He had others that he wanted to get rid of, too.  This is your science history, so you should be able to explain.  Hitler wasn't the only racist politician during the time.  There were others, so it influenced the world.  The ones who tried to save the Jews such as Oscar Schindler and Corrie ten Boom and her family were few in number.  Why did other countries remain isolationist and appeased Germany?  Did they believe only the strong survive and this was how the weak were weeded out?
> 
> It's the ToE.  "The theory of evolution is based on individuals acquiring unique traits that enable those possessing the new traits to better survive adverse conditions compared to those who don’t possess them. Superior individuals will be more likely to survive and pass on these traits to their offspring so such traits will increase in number, while the ‘weaker’ individuals will eventually die off. If every member of a species were fully equal, natural selection would have nothing to select from, and evolution would cease for that species."
> 
> - Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust -
Click to expand...


Of course you stole your long cut and paste from Henry Morris. Your link above is to AIG which is a stereotypical clearinghouse for Henry Morris groupies / xtian zealots. 

It’s not surprising then that the entirety of your cutting and pasting consists of 1990’s vintage clichés and nonsensical Christian fundamentalist tripe from AIG and creation.com.

The Christian fundamentalist claim linking Hitler to “Darwinism” is actually pretty ironic as Hitler and Christianity had close ties. 

*Claim CA006.1:*
Adolf Hitler exploited the racist ideas of Darwinism to justify genocide.

*Source:*
Weston-Broome, Sharon. 2001. Louisiana House Concurrent Resolution no. 74: CIVIL RIGHTS: Provides relative to racism and education about racism. HLS 01-2652 ORIGINAL.

*Response:*

Hitler based his ideas not on Darwinism but on a "divine right" philosophy:Thus, it [the folkish philosophy] by no means believes in an equality of races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated, through this knowledge, to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe. (Hitler 1943, 383)The first edition of _Mein Kampf_ suggests that Hitler may once have believed in a young earth: "this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men" (p. 65; the second edition substitutes "millions" for "thousands," and chapter 11 refers to "hundreds of thousands of years" of life in another context.) 
Other passages further support his creationist leanings:The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise. (Hitler 1943, 383)andWhat we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, . . . so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. (Hitler 1943, 214)Quotes from Hitler invoking Christianity as a basis for his actions could be multiplied ad nauseam. For example:Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord (Hitler 1943, 65)."[T]he task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission (Hitler 1943, 398).A campaign against the "godless movement" and an appeal for Catholic support were launched Wednesday by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces (Associated Press 1933).Of course, this does not mean that Hitler's ideas were based on creationism any more than they were based on evolution. Hitler's ideas were a perversion of both religion and biology. 


The Nazi Party in general rejected Darwinism and supported Christianity. In 1935, _Die Bücherei_, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published a list of guidelines of works to reject, including:Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel). (Die Bücherei 1935, 279)On the other hand, an undated "Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries" includes the following on a list of literature which "absolutely must be removed":c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the _Volk_. (Blacklist n.d.)
Genocide and racism existed long before Darwin. Obviously, they did not need any contribution from Darwinism. In many instances, such as the Crusades and the Spanish conquest of Central America, religion was explicitly invoked to justify them. 


Evolution does not promote social Darwinism or racism or eugenics.
*References:*

"Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries." Quoted from University of Arizona Library, "Lists of Banned Books, 1932-1939", transl. Roland Richter, When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939
_Die Bücherei_ 2:6 (1935). Quoted from University of Arizona Library, "Lists of Banned Books, 1932-1939", transl. Roland Richter,When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939
Hitler, A. 1943.  _Mein Kampf_. Transl. R. Manheim. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Mein Kampf, Introduction or http://www.crusader.net/texts/mk/
Associated Press. 1933. Hitler aims blow at 'Godless' move, Lansing State Journal (Michigan), Feb. 23, 1933. Reprinted atHitler's Religion


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The story with the Bible has always been about finding contradictions from the low brow internet atheists.  After all, the contradictions came to evolution right away and was shown to be false as Dawin was wrong and it lead to social Darwinism, Eugenics, Hitler, the Holocaust and Planned Parenthood.  Satan had his own book and could not have done it better.  However, people continue to fall for it as natural selection is used for microevolution and falsity becomes the truth.  Part is true, so the rest is true.  That's a fallacy in itself.  Anyway, the Bible has not been contradicted.  It is infallible as God's word is infallible.  Thus, how can the non-believers be anything else but wrong?  Atheist science is a lie and wrong, wrong, wrong.  In a way, it is prophecized that there will be _global warming_ when the entire Earth is destroyed by fire and the lamb shall come again.  The irony.
> 
> "The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
> and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
> and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together;
> and a little child shall lead them." Isaiah 11:6
> 
> "And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”
> And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth." Revelation 5:5-6
> 
> Revelation 5 continues with John the Apostle noticing there is a scroll in the right hand of the man on the throne.  The scroll has writing on the inside and is sealed with seven seals.  Only one lamb is worthy to receive the scroll and break the seals.
> 
> The scroll could be our universe as its seven seals are broken and the lamb comes again to take away the sins of the world through fire this time.
> 
> And like with the flood, there will be survivors and the rest, the spiritually dead, will perish in the fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You apparently took a great deal of time gathering as many clichés as you could find at your ID’iot / creation ministries. You rattle on about contradictions in biological evolution and how it is false yet, as usual, you are unable to offer a single relevant example.
> 
> Evolution is a theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). ID’iot / creationism asserts a _supernatural cause_ for existence Evolution is a theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). ID asserts a _supernatural cause_ at the git-go, and doesn't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of its own assertions:
> 
> A. If there is required an intelligent designer because existence displays a complex design, then doesn't the intelligent designer also require an intelligent designer to have designer it as well? (Translation: If your premise is: "X" needs a Designer because it's complicated, then the Designer needs a designer because it's even MORE complicated than "X", in order to have designed it in the first place.)
> 
> B. What are the characteristics of this "Designer"? Assume the "Designer" assertion is true -- why does this "Designer" become important at all? It may be long dead. It may have no vested interest. Is it at all demonstrable?
> 
> The fundie xtian attempt to conflate evolution and eugenics is classic dishonesty and misrepresentation spewed by the Christian fundie ministries. It’s all so stereotypically corrupt which defines the angry, self-hating fundies.
> 
> 
> *CA002.1:  Social Darwinism.*
> 
> *Claim CA002.1:*
> 
> Darwinism leads to social Darwinism, the policy that the weak should be allowed to fail and die.
> 
> *Source:*
> 
> Morris, Henry M. 1985. _Scientific Creationism_. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 179.
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> 
> This is an example of the naturalistic fallacy -- the argument that how things are implies how they ought to be. But "is" does not imply "ought." Evolution only tells how things are; it does not say how they should be.
> The source of social Darwinism was not Darwin but Herbert Spencer and the tradition of Protestant nonconformism going back to Hobbes via Malthus. Spencer's ideas of evolution were Lamarckian. The only real connection between Darwinism and social Darwinism is the name.
> Diverse political and religious ideas draw upon evolutionary biology, including ideas advocating greater cooperation.
> Evolutionary theory shows us that the long-term survival of a species is strongly linked with its genetic variability. All Social Darwinist programs advocate minimizing genetic variability, thus reducing chances of long-term survival in the event of environmental change. An understanding of evolution should then rebuke any attempt at social Darwinism if the long-term survival of humanity is treated as a goal.
> Eugenics and social Darwinian accounts are more often tied to the rise of the science of genetics than to evolutionary theory.
> *Links:*
> 
> Wilkins, John, 1997. Evolution and philosophy: Does evolution make might right? Evolution and Philosophy: Social Darwinism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't get it from Henry Morris.  This is one of the conclusions I got from reading Darwin and learning about what happened afterward.  This is no harmless fallacy nor a contradiction.  This is what Darwin basically was saying in his second book.  You do not get it from secular science as they cover up their lies.  They were part of the racism.  The only thing they had evidence for was microevolution and they took it to macroevolution and applied it to humans.   Darwin was not able to figure out how to get the long-time.  He also did not find the transitional fossils, so thought his work was wrong.  Thus, he focused on the survival of the fittest which he got from Herbert Spencer and promptly put it in his book.  This is how evolution produced favored races which is what Spencer taught.  Prior to this, there was a history of racist thinking in science from Darwin's peers and his father's friends.  Men were superior to women and certain races were more evolved than others.  The racism is evident in his second book The Descent of Man.  He decided to focus on humans because he could not demonstrate how animals changed from one creature to another.  It still does not happen today.  We do not find transitional fossils, but instead find living fossils.  Thus, how could there have been a transition mutation?
> 
> However, focusing on humans was enough for another scientific best seller.  The rest they say is history.  "Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin’s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies. Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler’s government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitler’s administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the ‘superior race’. This required at the very least preventing the ‘inferior races’ from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latter’s gene pool. The ‘superior race’ belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin’s original ‘survival of the fittest’ theory. This philosophy culminated in the ‘final solution’, the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged as ‘inferior races’."  It's no wonder that a science book became such a popular best seller.  Why were the Jews picked out by Hitler?  Can you tell me that?  He had others that he wanted to get rid of, too.  This is your science history, so you should be able to explain.  Hitler wasn't the only racist politician during the time.  There were others, so it influenced the world.  The ones who tried to save the Jews such as Oscar Schindler and Corrie ten Boom and her family were few in number.  Why did other countries remain isolationist and appeased Germany?  Did they believe only the strong survive and this was how the weak were weeded out?
> 
> It's the ToE.  "The theory of evolution is based on individuals acquiring unique traits that enable those possessing the new traits to better survive adverse conditions compared to those who don’t possess them. Superior individuals will be more likely to survive and pass on these traits to their offspring so such traits will increase in number, while the ‘weaker’ individuals will eventually die off. If every member of a species were fully equal, natural selection would have nothing to select from, and evolution would cease for that species."
> 
> - Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you stole your long cut and paste from Henry Morris. Your link above is to AIG which is a stereotypical clearinghouse for Henry Morris groupies / xtian zealots.
> 
> It’s not surprising then that the entirety of your cutting and pasting consists of 1990’s vintage clichés and nonsensical Christian fundamentalist tripe from AIG and creation.com.
> 
> The Christian fundamentalist claim linking Hitler to “Darwinism” is actually pretty ironic as Hitler and Christianity had close ties.
> 
> *Claim CA006.1:*
> Adolf Hitler exploited the racist ideas of Darwinism to justify genocide.
> 
> *Source:*
> Weston-Broome, Sharon. 2001. Louisiana House Concurrent Resolution no. 74: CIVIL RIGHTS: Provides relative to racism and education about racism. HLS 01-2652 ORIGINAL.
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> Hitler based his ideas not on Darwinism but on a "divine right" philosophy:Thus, it [the folkish philosophy] by no means believes in an equality of races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated, through this knowledge, to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe. (Hitler 1943, 383)The first edition of _Mein Kampf_ suggests that Hitler may once have believed in a young earth: "this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men" (p. 65; the second edition substitutes "millions" for "thousands," and chapter 11 refers to "hundreds of thousands of years" of life in another context.)
> Other passages further support his creationist leanings:The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise. (Hitler 1943, 383)andWhat we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, . . . so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. (Hitler 1943, 214)Quotes from Hitler invoking Christianity as a basis for his actions could be multiplied ad nauseam. For example:Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord (Hitler 1943, 65)."[T]he task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission (Hitler 1943, 398).A campaign against the "godless movement" and an appeal for Catholic support were launched Wednesday by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces (Associated Press 1933).Of course, this does not mean that Hitler's ideas were based on creationism any more than they were based on evolution. Hitler's ideas were a perversion of both religion and biology.
> 
> 
> The Nazi Party in general rejected Darwinism and supported Christianity. In 1935, _Die Bücherei_, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published a list of guidelines of works to reject, including:Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel). (Die Bücherei 1935, 279)On the other hand, an undated "Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries" includes the following on a list of literature which "absolutely must be removed":c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the _Volk_. (Blacklist n.d.)
> Genocide and racism existed long before Darwin. Obviously, they did not need any contribution from Darwinism. In many instances, such as the Crusades and the Spanish conquest of Central America, religion was explicitly invoked to justify them.
> 
> 
> Evolution does not promote social Darwinism or racism or eugenics.
> *References:*
> 
> "Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries." Quoted from University of Arizona Library, "Lists of Banned Books, 1932-1939", transl. Roland Richter, When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939
> _Die Bücherei_ 2:6 (1935). Quoted from University of Arizona Library, "Lists of Banned Books, 1932-1939", transl. Roland Richter,When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939
> Hitler, A. 1943.  _Mein Kampf_. Transl. R. Manheim. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Mein Kampf, Introduction or http://www.crusader.net/texts/mk/
> Associated Press. 1933. Hitler aims blow at 'Godless' move, Lansing State Journal (Michigan), Feb. 23, 1933. Reprinted atHitler's Religion
Click to expand...



Evolution theory is a fraud 


This one fact proves this


Not a single life form out of trillions has mutated its genes to stop the dominance and pressure of humans on them

Therefore no evolution especially when applied to a human being 

History proves humans are on a journey to become gods of the universe !!


----------



## GreenAndBlue

james bond said:


> The story with the Bible has always been about finding contradictions from the low brow internet atheists.  After all, the contradictions came to evolution right away and was shown to be false as Dawin was wrong and it lead to social Darwinism, Eugenics, Hitler, the Holocaust and Planned Parenthood.  Satan had his own book and could not have done it better.  However, people continue to fall for it as natural selection is used for microevolution and falsity becomes the truth.  Part is true, so the rest is true.  That's a fallacy in itself.  Anyway, the Bible has not been contradicted.  It is infallible as God's word is infallible.  Thus, how can the non-believers be anything else but wrong?  Atheist science is a lie and wrong, wrong, wrong.  In a way, it is prophecized that there will be _global warming_ when the entire Earth is destroyed by fire and the lamb shall come again.  The irony.
> 
> "The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
> and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
> and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together;
> and a little child shall lead them." Isaiah 11:6
> 
> "And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”
> And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth." Revelation 5:5-6
> 
> Revelation 5 continues with John the Apostle noticing there is a scroll in the right hand of the man on the throne.  The scroll has writing on the inside and is sealed with seven seals.  Only one lamb is worthy to receive the scroll and break the seals.
> 
> The scroll could be our universe as its seven seals are broken and the lamb comes again to take away the sins of the world through fire this time.
> 
> And like with the flood, there will be survivors and the rest, the spiritually dead, will perish in the fire.




Ummm???


The fire maybe a few nukes hitting North America and the grid is lost and back to the dark ages


----------



## Hollie

GreenAndBlue said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The story with the Bible has always been about finding contradictions from the low brow internet atheists.  After all, the contradictions came to evolution right away and was shown to be false as Dawin was wrong and it lead to social Darwinism, Eugenics, Hitler, the Holocaust and Planned Parenthood.  Satan had his own book and could not have done it better.  However, people continue to fall for it as natural selection is used for microevolution and falsity becomes the truth.  Part is true, so the rest is true.  That's a fallacy in itself.  Anyway, the Bible has not been contradicted.  It is infallible as God's word is infallible.  Thus, how can the non-believers be anything else but wrong?  Atheist science is a lie and wrong, wrong, wrong.  In a way, it is prophecized that there will be _global warming_ when the entire Earth is destroyed by fire and the lamb shall come again.  The irony.
> 
> "The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
> and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
> and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together;
> and a little child shall lead them." Isaiah 11:6
> 
> "And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”
> And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth." Revelation 5:5-6
> 
> Revelation 5 continues with John the Apostle noticing there is a scroll in the right hand of the man on the throne.  The scroll has writing on the inside and is sealed with seven seals.  Only one lamb is worthy to receive the scroll and break the seals.
> 
> The scroll could be our universe as its seven seals are broken and the lamb comes again to take away the sins of the world through fire this time.
> 
> And like with the flood, there will be survivors and the rest, the spiritually dead, will perish in the fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You apparently took a great deal of time gathering as many clichés as you could find at your ID’iot / creation ministries. You rattle on about contradictions in biological evolution and how it is false yet, as usual, you are unable to offer a single relevant example.
> 
> Evolution is a theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). ID’iot / creationism asserts a _supernatural cause_ for existence Evolution is a theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). ID asserts a _supernatural cause_ at the git-go, and doesn't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of its own assertions:
> 
> A. If there is required an intelligent designer because existence displays a complex design, then doesn't the intelligent designer also require an intelligent designer to have designer it as well? (Translation: If your premise is: "X" needs a Designer because it's complicated, then the Designer needs a designer because it's even MORE complicated than "X", in order to have designed it in the first place.)
> 
> B. What are the characteristics of this "Designer"? Assume the "Designer" assertion is true -- why does this "Designer" become important at all? It may be long dead. It may have no vested interest. Is it at all demonstrable?
> 
> The fundie xtian attempt to conflate evolution and eugenics is classic dishonesty and misrepresentation spewed by the Christian fundie ministries. It’s all so stereotypically corrupt which defines the angry, self-hating fundies.
> 
> 
> *CA002.1:  Social Darwinism.*
> 
> *Claim CA002.1:*
> 
> Darwinism leads to social Darwinism, the policy that the weak should be allowed to fail and die.
> 
> *Source:*
> 
> Morris, Henry M. 1985. _Scientific Creationism_. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 179.
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> 
> This is an example of the naturalistic fallacy -- the argument that how things are implies how they ought to be. But "is" does not imply "ought." Evolution only tells how things are; it does not say how they should be.
> The source of social Darwinism was not Darwin but Herbert Spencer and the tradition of Protestant nonconformism going back to Hobbes via Malthus. Spencer's ideas of evolution were Lamarckian. The only real connection between Darwinism and social Darwinism is the name.
> Diverse political and religious ideas draw upon evolutionary biology, including ideas advocating greater cooperation.
> Evolutionary theory shows us that the long-term survival of a species is strongly linked with its genetic variability. All Social Darwinist programs advocate minimizing genetic variability, thus reducing chances of long-term survival in the event of environmental change. An understanding of evolution should then rebuke any attempt at social Darwinism if the long-term survival of humanity is treated as a goal.
> Eugenics and social Darwinian accounts are more often tied to the rise of the science of genetics than to evolutionary theory.
> *Links:*
> 
> Wilkins, John, 1997. Evolution and philosophy: Does evolution make might right? Evolution and Philosophy: Social Darwinism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't get it from Henry Morris.  This is one of the conclusions I got from reading Darwin and learning about what happened afterward.  This is no harmless fallacy nor a contradiction.  This is what Darwin basically was saying in his second book.  You do not get it from secular science as they cover up their lies.  They were part of the racism.  The only thing they had evidence for was microevolution and they took it to macroevolution and applied it to humans.   Darwin was not able to figure out how to get the long-time.  He also did not find the transitional fossils, so thought his work was wrong.  Thus, he focused on the survival of the fittest which he got from Herbert Spencer and promptly put it in his book.  This is how evolution produced favored races which is what Spencer taught.  Prior to this, there was a history of racist thinking in science from Darwin's peers and his father's friends.  Men were superior to women and certain races were more evolved than others.  The racism is evident in his second book The Descent of Man.  He decided to focus on humans because he could not demonstrate how animals changed from one creature to another.  It still does not happen today.  We do not find transitional fossils, but instead find living fossils.  Thus, how could there have been a transition mutation?
> 
> However, focusing on humans was enough for another scientific best seller.  The rest they say is history.  "Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin’s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies. Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler’s government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitler’s administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the ‘superior race’. This required at the very least preventing the ‘inferior races’ from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latter’s gene pool. The ‘superior race’ belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin’s original ‘survival of the fittest’ theory. This philosophy culminated in the ‘final solution’, the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged as ‘inferior races’."  It's no wonder that a science book became such a popular best seller.  Why were the Jews picked out by Hitler?  Can you tell me that?  He had others that he wanted to get rid of, too.  This is your science history, so you should be able to explain.  Hitler wasn't the only racist politician during the time.  There were others, so it influenced the world.  The ones who tried to save the Jews such as Oscar Schindler and Corrie ten Boom and her family were few in number.  Why did other countries remain isolationist and appeased Germany?  Did they believe only the strong survive and this was how the weak were weeded out?
> 
> It's the ToE.  "The theory of evolution is based on individuals acquiring unique traits that enable those possessing the new traits to better survive adverse conditions compared to those who don’t possess them. Superior individuals will be more likely to survive and pass on these traits to their offspring so such traits will increase in number, while the ‘weaker’ individuals will eventually die off. If every member of a species were fully equal, natural selection would have nothing to select from, and evolution would cease for that species."
> 
> - Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you stole your long cut and paste from Henry Morris. Your link above is to AIG which is a stereotypical clearinghouse for Henry Morris groupies / xtian zealots.
> 
> It’s not surprising then that the entirety of your cutting and pasting consists of 1990’s vintage clichés and nonsensical Christian fundamentalist tripe from AIG and creation.com.
> 
> The Christian fundamentalist claim linking Hitler to “Darwinism” is actually pretty ironic as Hitler and Christianity had close ties.
> 
> *Claim CA006.1:*
> Adolf Hitler exploited the racist ideas of Darwinism to justify genocide.
> 
> *Source:*
> Weston-Broome, Sharon. 2001. Louisiana House Concurrent Resolution no. 74: CIVIL RIGHTS: Provides relative to racism and education about racism. HLS 01-2652 ORIGINAL.
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> Hitler based his ideas not on Darwinism but on a "divine right" philosophy:Thus, it [the folkish philosophy] by no means believes in an equality of races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated, through this knowledge, to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe. (Hitler 1943, 383)The first edition of _Mein Kampf_ suggests that Hitler may once have believed in a young earth: "this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men" (p. 65; the second edition substitutes "millions" for "thousands," and chapter 11 refers to "hundreds of thousands of years" of life in another context.)
> Other passages further support his creationist leanings:The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise. (Hitler 1943, 383)andWhat we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, . . . so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. (Hitler 1943, 214)Quotes from Hitler invoking Christianity as a basis for his actions could be multiplied ad nauseam. For example:Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord (Hitler 1943, 65)."[T]he task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission (Hitler 1943, 398).A campaign against the "godless movement" and an appeal for Catholic support were launched Wednesday by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces (Associated Press 1933).Of course, this does not mean that Hitler's ideas were based on creationism any more than they were based on evolution. Hitler's ideas were a perversion of both religion and biology.
> 
> 
> The Nazi Party in general rejected Darwinism and supported Christianity. In 1935, _Die Bücherei_, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published a list of guidelines of works to reject, including:Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel). (Die Bücherei 1935, 279)On the other hand, an undated "Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries" includes the following on a list of literature which "absolutely must be removed":c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the _Volk_. (Blacklist n.d.)
> Genocide and racism existed long before Darwin. Obviously, they did not need any contribution from Darwinism. In many instances, such as the Crusades and the Spanish conquest of Central America, religion was explicitly invoked to justify them.
> 
> 
> Evolution does not promote social Darwinism or racism or eugenics.
> *References:*
> 
> "Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries." Quoted from University of Arizona Library, "Lists of Banned Books, 1932-1939", transl. Roland Richter, When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939
> _Die Bücherei_ 2:6 (1935). Quoted from University of Arizona Library, "Lists of Banned Books, 1932-1939", transl. Roland Richter,When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939
> Hitler, A. 1943.  _Mein Kampf_. Transl. R. Manheim. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Mein Kampf, Introduction or http://www.crusader.net/texts/mk/
> Associated Press. 1933. Hitler aims blow at 'Godless' move, Lansing State Journal (Michigan), Feb. 23, 1933. Reprinted atHitler's Religion
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution theory is a fraud
> 
> 
> This one fact proves this
> 
> 
> Not a single life form out of trillions has mutated its genes to stop the dominance and pressure of humans on them
> 
> Therefore no evolution especially when applied to a human being
> 
> History proves humans are on a journey to become gods of the universe !!
Click to expand...


Well, thanks. And here I was thinking a dead Henry Morris was a positive step for humanity.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The story with the Bible has always been about finding contradictions from the low brow internet atheists.  After all, the contradictions came to evolution right away and was shown to be false as Dawin was wrong and it lead to social Darwinism, Eugenics, Hitler, the Holocaust and Planned Parenthood.  Satan had his own book and could not have done it better.  However, people continue to fall for it as natural selection is used for microevolution and falsity becomes the truth.  Part is true, so the rest is true.  That's a fallacy in itself.  Anyway, the Bible has not been contradicted.  It is infallible as God's word is infallible.  Thus, how can the non-believers be anything else but wrong?  Atheist science is a lie and wrong, wrong, wrong.  In a way, it is prophecized that there will be _global warming_ when the entire Earth is destroyed by fire and the lamb shall come again.  The irony.
> 
> "The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
> and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
> and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together;
> and a little child shall lead them." Isaiah 11:6
> 
> "And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”
> And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth." Revelation 5:5-6
> 
> Revelation 5 continues with John the Apostle noticing there is a scroll in the right hand of the man on the throne.  The scroll has writing on the inside and is sealed with seven seals.  Only one lamb is worthy to receive the scroll and break the seals.
> 
> The scroll could be our universe as its seven seals are broken and the lamb comes again to take away the sins of the world through fire this time.
> 
> And like with the flood, there will be survivors and the rest, the spiritually dead, will perish in the fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You apparently took a great deal of time gathering as many clichés as you could find at your ID’iot / creation ministries. You rattle on about contradictions in biological evolution and how it is false yet, as usual, you are unable to offer a single relevant example.
> 
> Evolution is a theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). ID’iot / creationism asserts a _supernatural cause_ for existence Evolution is a theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). ID asserts a _supernatural cause_ at the git-go, and doesn't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of its own assertions:
> 
> A. If there is required an intelligent designer because existence displays a complex design, then doesn't the intelligent designer also require an intelligent designer to have designer it as well? (Translation: If your premise is: "X" needs a Designer because it's complicated, then the Designer needs a designer because it's even MORE complicated than "X", in order to have designed it in the first place.)
> 
> B. What are the characteristics of this "Designer"? Assume the "Designer" assertion is true -- why does this "Designer" become important at all? It may be long dead. It may have no vested interest. Is it at all demonstrable?
> 
> The fundie xtian attempt to conflate evolution and eugenics is classic dishonesty and misrepresentation spewed by the Christian fundie ministries. It’s all so stereotypically corrupt which defines the angry, self-hating fundies.
> 
> 
> *CA002.1:  Social Darwinism.*
> 
> *Claim CA002.1:*
> 
> Darwinism leads to social Darwinism, the policy that the weak should be allowed to fail and die.
> 
> *Source:*
> 
> Morris, Henry M. 1985. _Scientific Creationism_. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 179.
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> 
> This is an example of the naturalistic fallacy -- the argument that how things are implies how they ought to be. But "is" does not imply "ought." Evolution only tells how things are; it does not say how they should be.
> The source of social Darwinism was not Darwin but Herbert Spencer and the tradition of Protestant nonconformism going back to Hobbes via Malthus. Spencer's ideas of evolution were Lamarckian. The only real connection between Darwinism and social Darwinism is the name.
> Diverse political and religious ideas draw upon evolutionary biology, including ideas advocating greater cooperation.
> Evolutionary theory shows us that the long-term survival of a species is strongly linked with its genetic variability. All Social Darwinist programs advocate minimizing genetic variability, thus reducing chances of long-term survival in the event of environmental change. An understanding of evolution should then rebuke any attempt at social Darwinism if the long-term survival of humanity is treated as a goal.
> Eugenics and social Darwinian accounts are more often tied to the rise of the science of genetics than to evolutionary theory.
> *Links:*
> 
> Wilkins, John, 1997. Evolution and philosophy: Does evolution make might right? Evolution and Philosophy: Social Darwinism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't get it from Henry Morris.  This is one of the conclusions I got from reading Darwin and learning about what happened afterward.  This is no harmless fallacy nor a contradiction.  This is what Darwin basically was saying in his second book.  You do not get it from secular science as they cover up their lies.  They were part of the racism.  The only thing they had evidence for was microevolution and they took it to macroevolution and applied it to humans.   Darwin was not able to figure out how to get the long-time.  He also did not find the transitional fossils, so thought his work was wrong.  Thus, he focused on the survival of the fittest which he got from Herbert Spencer and promptly put it in his book.  This is how evolution produced favored races which is what Spencer taught.  Prior to this, there was a history of racist thinking in science from Darwin's peers and his father's friends.  Men were superior to women and certain races were more evolved than others.  The racism is evident in his second book The Descent of Man.  He decided to focus on humans because he could not demonstrate how animals changed from one creature to another.  It still does not happen today.  We do not find transitional fossils, but instead find living fossils.  Thus, how could there have been a transition mutation?
> 
> However, focusing on humans was enough for another scientific best seller.  The rest they say is history.  "Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin’s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies. Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler’s government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitler’s administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the ‘superior race’. This required at the very least preventing the ‘inferior races’ from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latter’s gene pool. The ‘superior race’ belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin’s original ‘survival of the fittest’ theory. This philosophy culminated in the ‘final solution’, the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged as ‘inferior races’."  It's no wonder that a science book became such a popular best seller.  Why were the Jews picked out by Hitler?  Can you tell me that?  He had others that he wanted to get rid of, too.  This is your science history, so you should be able to explain.  Hitler wasn't the only racist politician during the time.  There were others, so it influenced the world.  The ones who tried to save the Jews such as Oscar Schindler and Corrie ten Boom and her family were few in number.  Why did other countries remain isolationist and appeased Germany?  Did they believe only the strong survive and this was how the weak were weeded out?
> 
> It's the ToE.  "The theory of evolution is based on individuals acquiring unique traits that enable those possessing the new traits to better survive adverse conditions compared to those who don’t possess them. Superior individuals will be more likely to survive and pass on these traits to their offspring so such traits will increase in number, while the ‘weaker’ individuals will eventually die off. If every member of a species were fully equal, natural selection would have nothing to select from, and evolution would cease for that species."
> 
> - Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you stole your long cut and paste from Henry Morris. Your link above is to AIG which is a stereotypical clearinghouse for Henry Morris groupies / xtian zealots.
> 
> It’s not surprising then that the entirety of your cutting and pasting consists of 1990’s vintage clichés and nonsensical Christian fundamentalist tripe from AIG and creation.com.
> 
> The Christian fundamentalist claim linking Hitler to “Darwinism” is actually pretty ironic as Hitler and Christianity had close ties.
> 
> *Claim CA006.1:*
> Adolf Hitler exploited the racist ideas of Darwinism to justify genocide.
> 
> *Source:*
> Weston-Broome, Sharon. 2001. Louisiana House Concurrent Resolution no. 74: CIVIL RIGHTS: Provides relative to racism and education about racism. HLS 01-2652 ORIGINAL.
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> Hitler based his ideas not on Darwinism but on a "divine right" philosophy:Thus, it [the folkish philosophy] by no means believes in an equality of races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated, through this knowledge, to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe. (Hitler 1943, 383)The first edition of _Mein Kampf_ suggests that Hitler may once have believed in a young earth: "this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men" (p. 65; the second edition substitutes "millions" for "thousands," and chapter 11 refers to "hundreds of thousands of years" of life in another context.)
> Other passages further support his creationist leanings:The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise. (Hitler 1943, 383)andWhat we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, . . . so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. (Hitler 1943, 214)Quotes from Hitler invoking Christianity as a basis for his actions could be multiplied ad nauseam. For example:Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord (Hitler 1943, 65)."[T]he task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission (Hitler 1943, 398).A campaign against the "godless movement" and an appeal for Catholic support were launched Wednesday by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces (Associated Press 1933).Of course, this does not mean that Hitler's ideas were based on creationism any more than they were based on evolution. Hitler's ideas were a perversion of both religion and biology.
> 
> 
> The Nazi Party in general rejected Darwinism and supported Christianity. In 1935, _Die Bücherei_, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published a list of guidelines of works to reject, including:Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel). (Die Bücherei 1935, 279)On the other hand, an undated "Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries" includes the following on a list of literature which "absolutely must be removed":c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the _Volk_. (Blacklist n.d.)
> Genocide and racism existed long before Darwin. Obviously, they did not need any contribution from Darwinism. In many instances, such as the Crusades and the Spanish conquest of Central America, religion was explicitly invoked to justify them.
> 
> 
> Evolution does not promote social Darwinism or racism or eugenics.
> *References:*
> 
> "Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries." Quoted from University of Arizona Library, "Lists of Banned Books, 1932-1939", transl. Roland Richter, When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939
> _Die Bücherei_ 2:6 (1935). Quoted from University of Arizona Library, "Lists of Banned Books, 1932-1939", transl. Roland Richter,When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939
> Hitler, A. 1943.  _Mein Kampf_. Transl. R. Manheim. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Mein Kampf, Introduction or http://www.crusader.net/texts/mk/
> Associated Press. 1933. Hitler aims blow at 'Godless' move, Lansing State Journal (Michigan), Feb. 23, 1933. Reprinted atHitler's Religion
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution theory is a fraud
> 
> 
> This one fact proves this
> 
> 
> Not a single life form out of trillions has mutated its genes to stop the dominance and pressure of humans on them
> 
> Therefore no evolution especially when applied to a human being
> 
> History proves humans are on a journey to become gods of the universe !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, thanks. And here I was thinking a dead Henry Morris was a positive step for humanity.
Click to expand...

Only a liberal could imagine that the death of a Christian could be a positive step for society, and not see it as the loss of another individual who could express himself without expletives.


----------



## abu afak

LittleNipper said:


> *Only a liberal could imagine that the death of a Christian could be a positive step for society,* and not see it as the loss of another individual who could express himself without expletives.


And only a Deluded Godist could believe the death of the Christian 'god'/"god's son" (a Bled-out-Jew) created his path for life.
It's downright gory.
`
`


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Of course you stole your long cut and paste from Henry Morris.



You're getting too much jb under your skin and it's driven you mad.  I haven't seen many Henry Morris articles, so not much for me to link.  I think he writes books usually and have linked text from them.  Much of what I post is my writing and not c&p.

Darwin shouldn't have used "survival of the fittest" to refer to natural selection or microevolution.  It's wrong.  We found out that animals, insects and other creatures co-operate.  That was a huge part of his ToE since he didn't have transitional fossils (still don't) and long-time.  He wasn't sure about his own theory.  Thus, his evolution is wrong.

Not only his racist father influenced him, but his peers had scientific racism and his cousin, Francis Galton, came up with Eugenics that Hitler promptly used along with survival of the fittest.  Darwin's second book showed his racist colors and thinking in explaining who the favoured race was.  You can't deny he died rich from selling his books.  Not much real science, but still was popular due to favoured races and survival of the fittest.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you stole your long cut and paste from Henry Morris.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're getting too much jb under your skin and it's driven you mad.  I haven't seen many Henry Morris articles, so not much for me to link.  I think he writes books usually and have linked text from them.  Much of what I post is my writing and not c&p.
> 
> Darwin shouldn't have used "survival of the fittest" to refer to natural selection or microevolution.  It's wrong.  We found out that animals, insects and other creatures co-operate.  That was a huge part of his ToE since he didn't have transitional fossils (still don't) and long-time.  He wasn't sure about his own theory.  Thus, his evolution is wrong.
> 
> Not only his racist father influenced him, but his peers had scientific racism and his cousin, Francis Galton, came up with Eugenics that Hitler promptly used along with survival of the fittest.  Darwin's second book showed his racist colors and thinking in explaining who the favoured race was.  You can't deny he died rich from selling his books.  Not much real science, but still was popular due to favoured races and survival of the fittest.
Click to expand...


I'm afraid you're getting angrier and more emotive. Your tirades about "evolutionism" are taken from some of the more extremist, Christian fundamentalist blogs.

While you deny the existence of transitional fossils, the relevant science community has identified a great many.  It's convenient for the religious to deny that reality but as we know, the fundie ministries do no research so their only tactic is deny what science has produced.

It's stereotypical for fundie extremists to use the "rascist" card when they attempt to vilify science. They're only tactic is to defend Hitler's Nazi party as Nazi ideology was deeply rooted in christianity.

Did you know the Vermacht had the inscription "Gott mit uns" (God is with us), on their belt buckles?

What a lovely legacy you good xtain folks left to humanity.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> While you deny the existence of transitional fossils, the relevant science community has identified a great many.









This is a perfect example of facts made to fit the ToE via imagination.  The facts are the fossil is a preserved remnant of a creature that died and became fossilized.  It only demonstrates "where" it died.  The layer in which it was found has nothing to do with time chronology.  The name of the layer has to do with location.  IOW, the name of the layer is named after a location such as Devonian or Jurassic.  What the wrong atheist scientists claimed was the layer had to to with time chronology, made the fossil fit their interpretation of the time chronology and ToE.  Thus, the fossil which was just a fossil became evidence for transition, time chronology, mutation and macroevolution.  This was exposed around 2007.  Like I said, Darwin didn't believe his own ToE but why stop a fake story that people believe due to "faith-based" science.  At least, Darwin admitted he was wrong, but made no amends and just kept his money from sale of his books. 

Since you know so much about time, do you know what that old rock song _25 or 6 to 4 _means?

What does the Chicago lyric “25 or 6 to 4” mean?

Here's an example of Christian religion or the people parts for the ignorant.  Can you repent in dust and ashes?  "I have bound to You by the hearing of the ear; but now my eye sees You.  Therefore, I retract, and I repent in dust and ashes." Job 42:5-6


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> While you deny the existence of transitional fossils, the relevant science community has identified a great many.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a perfect example of facts made to fit the ToE via imagination.  The facts are the fossil is a preserved remnant of a creature that died and became fossilized.  It only demonstrates "where" it died.  The layer in which it was found has nothing to do with time chronology.  The name of the layer has to do with location.  IOW, the name of the layer is named after a location such as Devonian or Jurassic.  What the wrong atheist scientists claimed was the layer had to to with time chronology, made the fossil fit their interpretation of the time chronology and ToE.  Thus, the fossil which was just a fossil became evidence for transition, time chronology, mutation and macroevolution.  This was exposed around 2007.  Like I said, Darwin didn't believe his own ToE but why stop a fake story that people believe due to "faith-based" science.  At least, Darwin admitted he was wrong, but made no amends and just kept his money from sale of his books.
> 
> Since you know so much about time, do you know what that old rock song _25 or 6 to 4 _means?
> 
> What does the Chicago lyric “25 or 6 to 4” mean?
> 
> Here's an example of Christian religion or the people parts for the ignorant.  Can you repent in dust and ashes?  "I have bound to You by the hearing of the ear; but now my eye sees You.  Therefore, I retract, and I repent in dust and ashes." Job 42:5-6
Click to expand...



The problem you have with the science of biological evolution is that your only exposure has been through your fundamentalist ministries. Fundamentalist hacks have an agenda to press which is why they react as they do to knowledge and learning. That is why your cutting and pasting is so often drenched with pointless cartoons. I honestly don't know why you would cut and paste the nonsense you dump into these threads and expect to be taken seriously.

This forum is not the place to be hurling bible verses at others. Why do think anyone would accept your attempt at insult by using your bibles like a bloody truncheon?

Regarding your ignorant and uninformed claims about what Darwin and _Origin of Species_  actually theorized, neither the pattern of the fossil record or the existence of intermediate fossil forms was considered controversial amongst the scientists of the time. Darwin came up with an alternative explanation for these facts that did not rely on the supernatural. So the question is not what do intermediate forms in the fossil record (or the pattern of the fossil record) "prove", but rather how do we explain the existence of intermediate forms in the fossil record (and the pattern of fossil record)?

Biological evolution is the current best scientific explanation for this evidence; as well as that from many other biological fields. What modern anti-evolutionists tend to do is to simply deny that the evidence even exists rather than attempt to _scientifically_ explain it. But then they are usually doing apologetics for their sectarian beliefs, not science.

Your utterly absurd claim that Charles Darwin didn’t believe his own theory is nothing more than fundamentalist hacks forced out of desperation to spew nonsense claims. As usual, your nonsense claims are utterly lacking support.

The reason why fundamentalist Christians refuse to accept scientific findings is because they need a literal Adam and Eve to support their notion that all human beings are born totally depraved with Original Sin, and therefore in need of Salvation through Christ-- in fact, that was the whole reason for the crucifixion. If you replace Adam and Eve with Homo Erectus, the idea of the Fall of Man and Original Sin is a little hard to reconcile.


----------



## james bond

The bottom line is the Bible can't change.  People thought it was contradicted with the eternal universe.  However, that was shown to be wrong as the steady state theory was shown to be pseudoscience.  Since Stephen Hawking died, the BBT has come under attack.  One contradiction is the universe isn't uniform as there appear to be walls around the galaxies and there are voids in between them.  The universe exists in clumps.  We could not have that with uniform radiation from the CMB.  Thus, the radiated heat should be clumpy and not uniform.  This deals a serious blow to the BBT.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The bottom line is the Bible can't change.  People thought it was contradicted with the eternal universe.  However, that was shown to be wrong as the steady state theory was shown to be pseudoscience.  Since Stephen Hawking died, the BBT has come under attack.  One contradiction is the universe isn't uniform as there appear to be walls around the galaxies and there are voids in between them.  The universe exists in clumps.  We could not have that with uniform radiation from the CMB.  Thus, the radiated heat should be clumpy and not uniform.  This deals a serious blow to the BBT.



The bottom line is that the Bibles have changed, been edited and revised.

That’s part of the _evolution_ of all of the so-called holy texts all of them them being written by men.

The pseudoscience you dump into these threads is nothing more than the incoherent rambling of Henry Morris groupies.


It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the facts of science can contradict the Bible.

_Henry M. Morris_


----------

