Creationists

[koshergrl]

You can't apply a verb, this is my point. You don't apply RATIONALIZING. You apply a noun, rationale. Just accept that your writing sucks and move on.

 

[LOki]

You can't apply a verb, this is my point. You don't apply RATIONALIZING. You apply a noun, rationale. Just accept that your writing sucks and move on.

Again, you're wrong. Of course an activity can be the object of a verb.

• I will enjoy watching football today;
• Detroit will regret playing football today;
• YWC will continue to apply rationalizing;
• and you will continue denying that you are wrong.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes and if you had used it that way, it would have been correct.

Unfortunately, you didn't.

You're a miserable wordsmith, that's the beginning and end of it. Your copy is laughable and you need to learn to edit your own crap or suffer criticism and ridicule from anyone who can write (or edit) and is subjected to it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Good grief! Okay, let us back up a bit because you are so lost this is getting us no where. I am not talking about species of organisms, I am talking about a reducing environment. There are reactive chemical species swirling around. Sometimes your lack of understanding is astonishing Reducing atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Make your questions clear and precise. We were speaking of species when you put your two cents in.

I posted an article the other day,it was from someone from your side of the argument that said 99.9% of all species have gone extinct. Do you people agree on anything ?

Wow! #13 that I have seen where you reply to a post with something that has nothing to do with the post at all. Reducing environments and reactive species are terms that you learn early in a biology degree, though since I am sure you never got one, I am not surprised to find your knowledge nonexistent as usual.

At this point ,i don't really know what we were talking about because of your response.

The enviornment does affect survival but no one knows how many organisms that have ever existed they are just guessing,that is the inference we get from the likes of you.

One of your evolutionist guys make a claim,and you guys parrot it to nauseum and start teaching it like it's been verified and it is a statement of fact.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I helped my daughter's class do the Dodd experiment, they just finished it last year. With isolation and a different food source middle school students can witness speciation at work. The funny thing is it is easy and always works, it does not always take the same amount of generations though. Evidence for speciation at the bottom of the page

Do you understand the difference between micro-adaptations and macro-evolution.

That is no different then what happens with dogs and horses.

They are still Iguanas.

It's no different then what darwin saw with the galapagos finches. They will die out and what they were will return.

That is something your side ignores. The finches when drought was present the short beak was dying out,but what when the drought was over ? that's right the short beaked finch made a strong come back.

Look, you do not know what you are talking about, you make up invalid definitions for words and try to disprove them on that basis, which is called lying. You either can't read or refuse to read anything but nonsense. You get almost everything you say wrong. the experiment was not about iguanas, it was about fruit flies and how you can with a little isolation and a different food source, get two groups that will no longer mate with the other which is the beginning of speciation and can be witnessed by everyone. That, not whatever nonsense you make up in your head, is macroevolution. The finch thing is also wrong because it was about more than beaks, it was about the finches not being able to breed with the original population anymore, which was actually not even known in Darwin's time.

No you have been brainwashed to believe micro-evolution is macro-evolution or leads to it with no evidence to believe it. Don't call me a liar you moron,i have had enough of someone questioning my honesty.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Upon what fact of objective reality and/or valid logic do you base this?

The bible can be both fact and theory,mostly fact though.

Mostly fact? Judging by some of the 'facts' it presents, I'd say no.

Then we just disagree.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yet it remains entirely verifiable as real by evidence and valid logic in a way that the reality of your Creator persistently resists being verified. Why do you suppose that is?

You construct our Creator from even less. Upon what basis can you honestly demand He is not even more imaginary?

Your application of Zeno's paradox to rationalize this claim of yours fails to refute the abundant presence of transitional fossils in the fossil record.

It has the foundation of your imaginary friend entirely whupped though.

It's not as big a problem for evolution, as the reliance creationists have on logical fallacy to propose their assertions regarding "creation." And your repeated application of Zeno's paradox to rationalize this repeated claim of yours fails to refute the abundant presence of transitional fossils in the fossil record.

But evidence that they have differentiated through the accumulation of adaptive traits is evidence of macro-evolution.

Debunking evolution.


Debunking Evolution - problems, errors, and lies of evolution exposed as false and wrong

Debunking evolution? What a laugh!

Did you write that yourself? Because it's exactly wrong in every single way we've been proving you wrong; and wrong for the exact same misrepresentations of evolutionary theory, errors of fact, and logically fallacious reasoning we've been pointing out you've been applying all along.

Why don't you get a little intellectual integrity and level up?

Practice what you preach

 

[Youwerecreated]

In other words, you don't APPLY a VERB.

Interestingly, I can't even find the word "rationalizing" in the dictionary.

Rationalize - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

What we have here folks, is an unambiguous example of the stolid denial of verifiable reality that characterizes faith. You see, here our little cupcake holds a baseless preconception about reality, and with the absolute, unassailable, arrogant, and sanctimonious certainty of faith, she refuses to acknowledge that she actually found "rationalizing" in a dictionary; she linked to it, ignored her incorrect notion of the term's primary meaning, and then declared it wasn't to be found.

ra·tio·nal·ize verb
\ˈrash-nə-ˌlīz, ˈra-shə-nə-ˌlīz\

ra·tio·nal·ized | ra·tio·nal·iz·ing

Definition of RATIONALIZE

transitive verb

1 : to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as

a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth>

b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>​

The lesson to be learned here, is that those who apply faith are correct only by accident; and even when unambiguously wrong, they will deny verifiable reality--the strength of that denial being the strength of their faith.

Dr. veith was showing in the videos to how your side does the very thing you claim creationist do.

Circular reasoning,and using rational thought. It does take faith to believe as you do because there is no evidence to show it happened like evolutionist claim, and that is what they don't want you to know.

You people ,once you start get hitting with the facts you turn your attention on the bible which none of you clearly understand. It is appartent that all of your attacks are based on how you think today, not like how people thought back then.

Do you people understand that languages evolve over time ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I think I'll take on some more of those 'science facts' from the Bible.

21.
Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be “parted” and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago – God declared this four millennia ago!

This is one of those passages from the Bible that get stretched to mean a modern scientific fact. This passage literally just asks which way is light parted? It's entirely mum on any sort of recombination, or that color even comes from different wavelengths of light. To be honest, I'm not sure where it's getting the "parting" from, or really even the combining. The recombining looks like the authors of this piece stretching the meaning of a single poetic line to mean whole swathes of scientific theory.

22.
Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the “paths of the seas.” In the 19th century Matthew Maury – the father of oceanography – after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maury’s data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.

Sailors in antiquity had knowledge of coastal currents, but obviously not ones from the open ocean. This one isn't that valid either, I'm afraid.



Unprotected sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health. It didn't take the Bible for people to realize venereal diseases exist. The rest of this is moralizing against homosexuality and for monogamy. It doesn't take a genius to realize if you sleep with the same person, you chances of catching STDs go down.



This is one of those 'facts' which actually aren't valid explanations. It doesn't actually give a reason except 'God did it,' which is a fallacy filled 'God in the gaps' argument

Just because we don't know something, doesn't mean you can attribute to a god. There are lots of things we didn't know before, that we do know. I guess that makes a god an ever-receding pocket of ignorance.

Also, I dunno if we actually do know what the penis and vagina evolved at the same time. The above still applies regardless.



This one is funny to claim credit for. Considering the translation quote says incalculable, and that it stands to reason that there is a finite number of stars (there is, the universe also has a finite mass, i.e., an actual weight), you can't give credit for something that will ultimately proved wrong.

I'd also like to know where it gets the 5,000 stars visible bit. The ancients also witnessed one or two supernovas, and I can't find anything about how many they thought there were in the universe.



So it contradicts itself! First in claims it's impossible to count all the stars, and now it twists the passage to say it can! Not to mention the exact passage it quotes doesn't actually automatically mean finite, it could be easily be infinite based on Christian claims of what God can do.



This is the third time it's gone on about stars. See above for an answer.


False claims. Take a look what Christians did when they ran the planet. Go on. I'll wait. Take a look on the priests who are morally depraved because they touch little boys. "People of God" can be morally depraved as anyone else. Hell, the Scandivian countries are fairly atheistic, yet they seem to be doing just find in terms of happiness and law and order.



It isn't possible for the Flood to have happened, but mass extinction events do. The reasons its impossible are numerous. The Ark can't have possibly held every species. There isn't enough water to flood the earth completely. It isn't possible to repopulate most species from simply two members of it.

Isn't it funny that now you wish you use fossil evidence, but only when its convenient for you?



Fossils aren't from the flood. See above.



This is a massive stretch to say it predicts that. Those passages explicitly state how he separates the ocean from the land. It's entirely mum on anything concerning one super continent or plate tectonics.



Again, the Flood didn't happen. So there's no pointing arguing like it did.



THE FLOOD DID NOT HAPPEN. I stated way it's impossible above. Two, it's stretching the meaning of Bible passages again. Those passages only talk about ice and cold in general. There is no mention of a world wide ice age. Saying it said anything about the ice age is stretching the truth considerably.



This is still open to debate at where life starts. We still haven't decided. Taking a stand on an issue like that does not equal science fact.



It just says God makes us. It doesn't say anything about embryonic development. In fact saying God does it makes it false, we know how fetus' develop in the womb. Also, the womb was not unknown to ancient peoples either, so saying this knowledge comes solely from the Bible is wrong.



That's not what that passages means at all. It just says God already knows who a person is and what their actions are before they are born. Which is pretty in line with Christian teaching (predestination anyone?).

To say it means DNA is to completely miss what that passage actually means.



This is stretching it, almost certainly. Y-chromosomal Adam is simply the most recent common ancestor of all this. He wasn't actually Adam, and only got named that because of the Bible and people's preference for assigning pop culture to something like that. He didn't even live at the same time as mitochondrial Eve.

Also, don't people who object to evolution object to the fact of common descent from a gene pool? Didn't you say we were all created and not from a "slime mold?" Way to contradict yourself.



Of course evolution wouldn't teach that, that's the field of anthropology and linguistics. I'm not sure why we should expect people isolated from each other to have the same language, that's actually quite retarded to suggest, and poor evidence that that is evidence of the tower of Babel.

39.
Origin of the different “races” explained (Genesis 11). As Noah’s descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.

So, it accepts concepts from evolution, but only when it's convenient? What hypocrites.

40.
God has given us the leaves of the trees as medicine (Ezekiel 47:12; Revelation 22:2). Ancient cultures utilized many herbal remedies. Today, modern medicine has rediscovered what the Bible has said all along – there are healing compounds found in plants.

Every ancient culture wasn't one based around the Judeo-Christian god. So the point is invalid by its own argument, the Bible has had nothing to do with.

These next twenty were more or less the same as the first. It involved shoveling scientific theory into whatever passage could fit the theory, stretching the meaning of passages beyond belief, and often times attributing to the Bible what is actually the credit of other non-Jewish societies. I'm surprised it wishes to use evolutionary concepts, but doesn't think evolution exists.

Don't attack something you clearly don't understand.

If you wanted them to write it exactly like we would today 3,500 years ago. I'm sorry to disappoint you but all of your atttacks are baseless and from your typical atheist websites.

I have responded to your baseless attacks on the bible in the past and it can be shown your understanding of the scriptures is rather poor.

I think you and drock spend too much time at the same sites as well as the mythical god loki.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I think I'll take on some more of those 'science facts' from the Bible.

21.
Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be “parted” and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago – God declared this four millennia ago!

This is one of those passages from the Bible that get stretched to mean a modern scientific fact. This passage literally just asks which way is light parted? It's entirely mum on any sort of recombination, or that color even comes from different wavelengths of light. To be honest, I'm not sure where it's getting the "parting" from, or really even the combining. The recombining looks like the authors of this piece stretching the meaning of a single poetic line to mean whole swathes of scientific theory.



Sailors in antiquity had knowledge of coastal currents, but obviously not ones from the open ocean. This one isn't that valid either, I'm afraid.



Unprotected sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health. It didn't take the Bible for people to realize venereal diseases exist. The rest of this is moralizing against homosexuality and for monogamy. It doesn't take a genius to realize if you sleep with the same person, you chances of catching STDs go down.



This is one of those 'facts' which actually aren't valid explanations. It doesn't actually give a reason except 'God did it,' which is a fallacy filled 'God in the gaps' argument

Just because we don't know something, doesn't mean you can attribute to a god. There are lots of things we didn't know before, that we do know. I guess that makes a god an ever-receding pocket of ignorance.

Also, I dunno if we actually do know what the penis and vagina evolved at the same time. The above still applies regardless.



This one is funny to claim credit for. Considering the translation quote says incalculable, and that it stands to reason that there is a finite number of stars (there is, the universe also has a finite mass, i.e., an actual weight), you can't give credit for something that will ultimately proved wrong.

I'd also like to know where it gets the 5,000 stars visible bit. The ancients also witnessed one or two supernovas, and I can't find anything about how many they thought there were in the universe.



So it contradicts itself! First in claims it's impossible to count all the stars, and now it twists the passage to say it can! Not to mention the exact passage it quotes doesn't actually automatically mean finite, it could be easily be infinite based on Christian claims of what God can do.



This is the third time it's gone on about stars. See above for an answer.


False claims. Take a look what Christians did when they ran the planet. Go on. I'll wait. Take a look on the priests who are morally depraved because they touch little boys. "People of God" can be morally depraved as anyone else. Hell, the Scandivian countries are fairly atheistic, yet they seem to be doing just find in terms of happiness and law and order.



It isn't possible for the Flood to have happened, but mass extinction events do. The reasons its impossible are numerous. The Ark can't have possibly held every species. There isn't enough water to flood the earth completely. It isn't possible to repopulate most species from simply two members of it.

Isn't it funny that now you wish you use fossil evidence, but only when its convenient for you?



Fossils aren't from the flood. See above.



This is a massive stretch to say it predicts that. Those passages explicitly state how he separates the ocean from the land. It's entirely mum on anything concerning one super continent or plate tectonics.



Again, the Flood didn't happen. So there's no pointing arguing like it did.



THE FLOOD DID NOT HAPPEN. I stated way it's impossible above. Two, it's stretching the meaning of Bible passages again. Those passages only talk about ice and cold in general. There is no mention of a world wide ice age. Saying it said anything about the ice age is stretching the truth considerably.



This is still open to debate at where life starts. We still haven't decided. Taking a stand on an issue like that does not equal science fact.



It just says God makes us. It doesn't say anything about embryonic development. In fact saying God does it makes it false, we know how fetus' develop in the womb. Also, the womb was not unknown to ancient peoples either, so saying this knowledge comes solely from the Bible is wrong.



That's not what that passages means at all. It just says God already knows who a person is and what their actions are before they are born. Which is pretty in line with Christian teaching (predestination anyone?).

To say it means DNA is to completely miss what that passage actually means.



This is stretching it, almost certainly. Y-chromosomal Adam is simply the most recent common ancestor of all this. He wasn't actually Adam, and only got named that because of the Bible and people's preference for assigning pop culture to something like that. He didn't even live at the same time as mitochondrial Eve.

Also, don't people who object to evolution object to the fact of common descent from a gene pool? Didn't you say we were all created and not from a "slime mold?" Way to contradict yourself.



Of course evolution wouldn't teach that, that's the field of anthropology and linguistics. I'm not sure why we should expect people isolated from each other to have the same language, that's actually quite retarded to suggest, and poor evidence that that is evidence of the tower of Babel.



So, it accepts concepts from evolution, but only when it's convenient? What hypocrites.

40.
God has given us the leaves of the trees as medicine (Ezekiel 47:12; Revelation 22:2). Ancient cultures utilized many herbal remedies. Today, modern medicine has rediscovered what the Bible has said all along – there are healing compounds found in plants.

Every ancient culture wasn't one based around the Judeo-Christian god. So the point is invalid by its own argument, the Bible has had nothing to do with.

These next twenty were more or less the same as the first. It involved shoveling scientific theory into whatever passage could fit the theory, stretching the meaning of passages beyond belief, and often times attributing to the Bible what is actually the credit of other non-Jewish societies. I'm surprised it wishes to use evolutionary concepts, but doesn't think evolution exists.

Don't attack something you clearly don't understand.

If you wanted them to write it exactly like we would today 3,500 years ago. I'm sorry to disappoint you but all of your atttacks are baseless and from your typical atheist websites.

I have responded to your baseless attacks on the bible in the past and it can be shown your understanding of the scriptures is rather poor.

I think you and drock spend too much time at the same sites as well as the mythical god loki.

I can't name one atheist website.


Thou shalt not lie YWC.

 

[cbirch2]

YWC can you explain chromosome 2 yet?

 

[FurthurBB]

Do you understand the difference between micro-adaptations and macro-evolution.

That is no different then what happens with dogs and horses.

They are still Iguanas.

It's no different then what darwin saw with the galapagos finches. They will die out and what they were will return.

That is something your side ignores. The finches when drought was present the short beak was dying out,but what when the drought was over ? that's right the short beaked finch made a strong come back.

Look, you do not know what you are talking about, you make up invalid definitions for words and try to disprove them on that basis, which is called lying. You either can't read or refuse to read anything but nonsense. You get almost everything you say wrong. the experiment was not about iguanas, it was about fruit flies and how you can with a little isolation and a different food source, get two groups that will no longer mate with the other which is the beginning of speciation and can be witnessed by everyone. That, not whatever nonsense you make up in your head, is macroevolution. The finch thing is also wrong because it was about more than beaks, it was about the finches not being able to breed with the original population anymore, which was actually not even known in Darwin's time.

No you have been brainwashed to believe micro-evolution is macro-evolution or leads to it with no evidence to believe it. Don't call me a liar you moron,i have had enough of someone questioning my honesty.

That would be easy enough to overcome with a little honesty on your part.

 

[FurthurBB]

Make your questions clear and precise. We were speaking of species when you put your two cents in.

I posted an article the other day,it was from someone from your side of the argument that said 99.9% of all species have gone extinct. Do you people agree on anything ?

Wow! #13 that I have seen where you reply to a post with something that has nothing to do with the post at all. Reducing environments and reactive species are terms that you learn early in a biology degree, though since I am sure you never got one, I am not surprised to find your knowledge nonexistent as usual.

At this point ,i don't really know what we were talking about because of your response.

The enviornment does affect survival but no one knows how many organisms that have ever existed they are just guessing,that is the inference we get from the likes of you.

One of your evolutionist guys make a claim,and you guys parrot it to nauseum and start teaching it like it's been verified and it is a statement of fact.

Of course you do not know what I am talking about, it is not because my responses. It is because you are an idiot on this entire subject.

 

[Woyzeck]

I think I'll take on some more of those 'science facts' from the Bible.

21.
Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be “parted” and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago – God declared this four millennia ago!

This is one of those passages from the Bible that get stretched to mean a modern scientific fact. This passage literally just asks which way is light parted? It's entirely mum on any sort of recombination, or that color even comes from different wavelengths of light. To be honest, I'm not sure where it's getting the "parting" from, or really even the combining. The recombining looks like the authors of this piece stretching the meaning of a single poetic line to mean whole swathes of scientific theory.



Sailors in antiquity had knowledge of coastal currents, but obviously not ones from the open ocean. This one isn't that valid either, I'm afraid.



Unprotected sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health. It didn't take the Bible for people to realize venereal diseases exist. The rest of this is moralizing against homosexuality and for monogamy. It doesn't take a genius to realize if you sleep with the same person, you chances of catching STDs go down.



This is one of those 'facts' which actually aren't valid explanations. It doesn't actually give a reason except 'God did it,' which is a fallacy filled 'God in the gaps' argument

Just because we don't know something, doesn't mean you can attribute to a god. There are lots of things we didn't know before, that we do know. I guess that makes a god an ever-receding pocket of ignorance.

Also, I dunno if we actually do know what the penis and vagina evolved at the same time. The above still applies regardless.



This one is funny to claim credit for. Considering the translation quote says incalculable, and that it stands to reason that there is a finite number of stars (there is, the universe also has a finite mass, i.e., an actual weight), you can't give credit for something that will ultimately proved wrong.

I'd also like to know where it gets the 5,000 stars visible bit. The ancients also witnessed one or two supernovas, and I can't find anything about how many they thought there were in the universe.



So it contradicts itself! First in claims it's impossible to count all the stars, and now it twists the passage to say it can! Not to mention the exact passage it quotes doesn't actually automatically mean finite, it could be easily be infinite based on Christian claims of what God can do.



This is the third time it's gone on about stars. See above for an answer.


False claims. Take a look what Christians did when they ran the planet. Go on. I'll wait. Take a look on the priests who are morally depraved because they touch little boys. "People of God" can be morally depraved as anyone else. Hell, the Scandivian countries are fairly atheistic, yet they seem to be doing just find in terms of happiness and law and order.



It isn't possible for the Flood to have happened, but mass extinction events do. The reasons its impossible are numerous. The Ark can't have possibly held every species. There isn't enough water to flood the earth completely. It isn't possible to repopulate most species from simply two members of it.

Isn't it funny that now you wish you use fossil evidence, but only when its convenient for you?



Fossils aren't from the flood. See above.



This is a massive stretch to say it predicts that. Those passages explicitly state how he separates the ocean from the land. It's entirely mum on anything concerning one super continent or plate tectonics.



Again, the Flood didn't happen. So there's no pointing arguing like it did.



THE FLOOD DID NOT HAPPEN. I stated way it's impossible above. Two, it's stretching the meaning of Bible passages again. Those passages only talk about ice and cold in general. There is no mention of a world wide ice age. Saying it said anything about the ice age is stretching the truth considerably.



This is still open to debate at where life starts. We still haven't decided. Taking a stand on an issue like that does not equal science fact.



It just says God makes us. It doesn't say anything about embryonic development. In fact saying God does it makes it false, we know how fetus' develop in the womb. Also, the womb was not unknown to ancient peoples either, so saying this knowledge comes solely from the Bible is wrong.



That's not what that passages means at all. It just says God already knows who a person is and what their actions are before they are born. Which is pretty in line with Christian teaching (predestination anyone?).

To say it means DNA is to completely miss what that passage actually means.



This is stretching it, almost certainly. Y-chromosomal Adam is simply the most recent common ancestor of all this. He wasn't actually Adam, and only got named that because of the Bible and people's preference for assigning pop culture to something like that. He didn't even live at the same time as mitochondrial Eve.

Also, don't people who object to evolution object to the fact of common descent from a gene pool? Didn't you say we were all created and not from a "slime mold?" Way to contradict yourself.



Of course evolution wouldn't teach that, that's the field of anthropology and linguistics. I'm not sure why we should expect people isolated from each other to have the same language, that's actually quite retarded to suggest, and poor evidence that that is evidence of the tower of Babel.



So, it accepts concepts from evolution, but only when it's convenient? What hypocrites.

40.
God has given us the leaves of the trees as medicine (Ezekiel 47:12; Revelation 22:2). Ancient cultures utilized many herbal remedies. Today, modern medicine has rediscovered what the Bible has said all along – there are healing compounds found in plants.

Every ancient culture wasn't one based around the Judeo-Christian god. So the point is invalid by its own argument, the Bible has had nothing to do with.

These next twenty were more or less the same as the first. It involved shoveling scientific theory into whatever passage could fit the theory, stretching the meaning of passages beyond belief, and often times attributing to the Bible what is actually the credit of other non-Jewish societies. I'm surprised it wishes to use evolutionary concepts, but doesn't think evolution exists.

Don't attack something you clearly don't understand.

And how don't I understand it?

If you wanted them to write it exactly like we would today 3,500 years ago. I'm sorry to disappoint you but all of your atttacks are baseless and from your typical atheist websites.

Could you point out how precisely they state scientific theory? I'm pretty sure the only way you could construe the theory you want is by stretching the meaning of the words past the breaking point. I examined the passages listed and pointed out that many did not even go near anywhere of actually describing modern scientific phenomenon. Perhaps you'd care to offer specific rebuttals to my points?

I have responded to your baseless attacks on the bible in the past and it can be shown your understanding of the scriptures is rather poor.

I think you and drock spend too much time at the same sites as well as the mythical god loki.

Actually all I did was google the specific passages and chapters, and then looked up various sites that described the specific theory that I didn't know off the top of my head. There were no atheist sites like you suggest.

If I'm so wrong and have "baseless" attacks, perhaps you could offer more specific criticisms of why I'm wrong, rather than just a general "well you're wrong!" without giving actual support.

 

[Woyzeck]

The bible can be both fact and theory,mostly fact though.

Mostly fact? Judging by some of the 'facts' it presents, I'd say no.

Then we just disagree.

You're free to disagree, however the reality of the situation proves the contrary.

 

[Youwerecreated]

YWC can you explain chromosome 2 yet?

Already have,you may not like the answer but that does not prove we diverged from the ape family. You don't remember the response ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

YWC can you explain chromosome 2 yet?

Why would I be concerned with that argument, don't you realize chimps have more chromosomes and they are bigger ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Wow! #13 that I have seen where you reply to a post with something that has nothing to do with the post at all. Reducing environments and reactive species are terms that you learn early in a biology degree, though since I am sure you never got one, I am not surprised to find your knowledge nonexistent as usual.

At this point ,i don't really know what we were talking about because of your response.

The enviornment does affect survival but no one knows how many organisms that have ever existed they are just guessing,that is the inference we get from the likes of you.

One of your evolutionist guys make a claim,and you guys parrot it to nauseum and start teaching it like it's been verified and it is a statement of fact.

Of course you do not know what I am talking about, it is not because my responses. It is because you are an idiot on this entire subject.

Listen you idiot,what does viruses becoming bacteria have to do with what we were talking about ? pay attention or remain silent.

 

[cbirch2]

YWC can you explain chromosome 2 yet?

Already have,you may not like the answer but that does not prove we diverged from the ape family. You don't remember the response ?

"that does not prove we diverged from the ape family"

The simple fusion of a chromosome doesnt prove that we descended from apes. It does prove that we descended from something non-human, though. Human ancestors had 48 chromosomes and therefore were a different species.

But in all reality chromosome two is outstanding evidence of just exactly how we evolved. The sequence of genes and the structure of the chromosomes exactly match the supposition of two adjacent chimpanzee chromosomes, and those chromosomes are in the same location as they are in the human genome. How much more evidence do you really need?

Human chromosome 2 is an exact supposition of chimpanzee chromosomes 2 and 3, usually called 2q and 2p for that very reason.

You really just reject all genetics??

 

[Youwerecreated]

Look, you do not know what you are talking about, you make up invalid definitions for words and try to disprove them on that basis, which is called lying. You either can't read or refuse to read anything but nonsense. You get almost everything you say wrong. the experiment was not about iguanas, it was about fruit flies and how you can with a little isolation and a different food source, get two groups that will no longer mate with the other which is the beginning of speciation and can be witnessed by everyone. That, not whatever nonsense you make up in your head, is macroevolution. The finch thing is also wrong because it was about more than beaks, it was about the finches not being able to breed with the original population anymore, which was actually not even known in Darwin's time.

No you have been brainwashed to believe micro-evolution is macro-evolution or leads to it with no evidence to believe it. Don't call me a liar you moron,i have had enough of someone questioning my honesty.

That would be easy enough to overcome with a little honesty on your part.

Honesty has nothing to do with it,well maybe it does but it has to come from your side. Your side has never proven or observed that major changes happens to create a new destinct organism from small changes over time =micro-evolution or Micro-adaptations.

The main difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution , micro-evolution are small scale changes within a family and macro-evolution are large scale changes that creates a new family group.

This has never been observed or demonstrated. You can point to Horzontal gene transfer all you want but that is merely one taking over another. You can point to a virus becoming a unhealthy bacteria. You can point to antibiotic resistence all you want. But these are all nothing more then micro-adaptations.