If God doesn't exist...

[BreezeWood]

.

I disagree that science is doing the best it can when it leaves out creation science.

at the very least, creationist have not provided verifiable proof for consideration contradicting any of the present known scientific facts, for any field of study.

simply there is no scientific reason for their participation without verifiable facts to prove their position.
.
.

 

[RWNJ]

.

I disagree that science is doing the best it can when it leaves out creation science.

at the very least, creationist have not provided verifiable proof for consideration contradicting any of the present known scientific facts, for any field of study.

simply there is no scientific reason for their participation without verifiable facts to prove their position.
.
.

There are scientific facts for the origin of life, or how and why the universe even exists. Science has no answers. All they can do is speculate. But, mostly, they just make things up. I respect real science, done in the lab. But the theory of origins is not real science. So, a belief in the Creator is just as valid as any scientific 'theory'.

 

[james bond]

.

I disagree that science is doing the best it can when it leaves out creation science.

at the very least, creationist have not provided verifiable proof for consideration contradicting any of the present known scientific facts, for any field of study.

simply there is no scientific reason for their participation without verifiable facts to prove their position.
.
.

First, you're wrong as usual because there is no proof in science, BreezeWood. You're confused with mathematics. Second, there is no valid evidence of evolution and people are rejecting it. Is it any wonder the MSM tries to promote evolution when it can and all the BS liberal talking points? Wikileaks has exposed the liberal media. Creation science has exposed evolution and provided the evidence on many things and will be right some more.

• Evolution is contrary to natural laws (without exception) whereas creation is consistent with natural laws—for example, creation is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics and law of biogenesis.
• There are no known biological processes for evolution to higher levels of organization and complexity—mutations are overwhelmingly degenerative and none are “uphill” (that is, unequivocally beneficial) in the sense of adding new genetic information to the gene pool.
• Geologic landforms and sedimentary features are completely consistent with a worldwide flood as described in the Book of Genesis.
• Enormous limestone formations, huge coal and oil formations, and immense underground salt layers are indicative of a worldwide flood—not slow and gradual processes over billions of years. Such features are satisfactorily explained by a worldwide flood and known geophysical and geochemical processes.
• A worldwide flood as described in Genesis 6–8 is within the boundaries of known geophysics—see phase diagram in chapter 4 and Pangaea Flood Video at CreationScienceToday.com.
• There is no credible technique for establishing the age of sedimentary rock—fossil dating used to establish the age of sedimentary rock suffers from circular reasoning and guesswork, all based on the assumption of evolution.
• The standard geologic column with transitional creatures evolving toward more complex forms, as depicted in most science textbooks, is utterly fictitious and misleading, and does not represent the real world. In reality, it perfectly represents the aftermath of a worldwide flood.
• There are no transitional fossils or living forms—there is not one single example of evolution! Evolutionists look for “the” missing link—ironically, they are in desperate search for just one! But there should be billions of examples of transitional forms with transitional structures if evolution were true, but there are none. The bottom line, evolution has never been observed within fossils or living populations.
• Contrary to popular belief, evidence indicates that early man was intelligent and highly skilled with an advanced social structure. There is also evidence suggesting their belief in the existence of an afterlife.
• Soft tissues and traces of blood cells have been found in dinosaur fossils supposedly 70 to 250 million years old. (Soft tissues and red blood cells have relatively short life spans.)
• Carbon-14 has been found in coal and diamonds supposedly hundreds of millions of years old. (C-14 has a relatively short life-span.)
• Radioisotope dating suffers from multiple unprovable assumptions—the technique is “fatally flawed”—yet scientists contend as fact what they cannot prove.
• Abundant daughter isotopes are indicative of accelerated nuclear decay associated with creation (expansion, stretching out, or acceleration of the universe from an extremely hot, dense phase when matter and energy were concentrated) and a worldwide flood with massive restructuring of the earth’s lithosphere, not slow and gradual processes over billions of years.
• Evidences of accelerated nuclear decay in igneous rocks found worldwide are helium in zircon crystals, radiohalos and fission tracks, and rapid magnetic field reversals and decay.
• Over a hundred geochronometers indicate a young earth and universe.

Source: evolution: The Greatest Deception in Modern History by Roger G. Gallup
https://www.amazon.com/evolution-Greatest-Deception-Scientific-Evolution/dp/0982997574&tag=ff0d01-20

 

[BreezeWood]

.

I disagree that science is doing the best it can when it leaves out creation science.

at the very least, creationist have not provided verifiable proof for consideration contradicting any of the present known scientific facts, for any field of study.

simply there is no scientific reason for their participation without verifiable facts to prove their position.
.
.

There are scientific facts for the origin of life, or how and why the universe even exists. Science has no answers. All they can do is speculate. But, mostly, they just make things up. I respect real science, done in the lab. But the theory of origins is not real science. So, a belief in the Creator is just as valid as any scientific 'theory'.

.

So, a belief in the Creator is just as valid as any scientific 'theory'.

All hail the Almighty ...


what is being discussed is rewriting the bible as you would have scientist rewrite theirs when proven wrong, something biblicist desperately refuse as an option - ergo, why they need not to be taken seriously.

the validation of the bible.

.

 

[james bond]

.

I disagree that science is doing the best it can when it leaves out creation science.

at the very least, creationist have not provided verifiable proof for consideration contradicting any of the present known scientific facts, for any field of study.

simply there is no scientific reason for their participation without verifiable facts to prove their position.
.
.

There are scientific facts for the origin of life, or how and why the universe even exists. Science has no answers. All they can do is speculate. But, mostly, they just make things up. I respect real science, done in the lab. But the theory of origins is not real science. So, a belief in the Creator is just as valid as any scientific 'theory'.

.

So, a belief in the Creator is just as valid as any scientific 'theory'.

All hail the Almighty ...


what is being discussed is rewriting the bible as you would have scientist rewrite theirs when proven wrong, something biblicist desperately refuse as an option - ergo, why they need not to be taken seriously.

the validation of the bible.

.

Jesus is Lord. We won't rewrite the Bible because it's not wrong like your evo science. Gotcha. Ha ha. Ta ta.

 

[RWS]

.

I disagree that science is doing the best it can when it leaves out creation science.

at the very least, creationist have not provided verifiable proof for consideration contradicting any of the present known scientific facts, for any field of study.

simply there is no scientific reason for their participation without verifiable facts to prove their position.
.
.

First, you're wrong as usual because there is no proof in science, BreezeWood. You're confused with mathematics. Second, there is no valid evidence of evolution and people are rejecting it. Is it any wonder the MSM tries to promote evolution when it can and all the BS liberal talking points? Wikileaks has exposed the liberal media. Creation science has exposed evolution and provided the evidence on many things and will be right some more.

• Evolution is contrary to natural laws (without exception) whereas creation is consistent with natural laws—for example, creation is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics and law of biogenesis.
• There are no known biological processes for evolution to higher levels of organization and complexity—mutations are overwhelmingly degenerative and none are “uphill” (that is, unequivocally beneficial) in the sense of adding new genetic information to the gene pool.
• Geologic landforms and sedimentary features are completely consistent with a worldwide flood as described in the Book of Genesis.
• Enormous limestone formations, huge coal and oil formations, and immense underground salt layers are indicative of a worldwide flood—not slow and gradual processes over billions of years. Such features are satisfactorily explained by a worldwide flood and known geophysical and geochemical processes.
• A worldwide flood as described in Genesis 6–8 is within the boundaries of known geophysics—see phase diagram in chapter 4 and Pangaea Flood Video at CreationScienceToday.com.
• There is no credible technique for establishing the age of sedimentary rock—fossil dating used to establish the age of sedimentary rock suffers from circular reasoning and guesswork, all based on the assumption of evolution.
• The standard geologic column with transitional creatures evolving toward more complex forms, as depicted in most science textbooks, is utterly fictitious and misleading, and does not represent the real world. In reality, it perfectly represents the aftermath of a worldwide flood.
• There are no transitional fossils or living forms—there is not one single example of evolution! Evolutionists look for “the” missing link—ironically, they are in desperate search for just one! But there should be billions of examples of transitional forms with transitional structures if evolution were true, but there are none. The bottom line, evolution has never been observed within fossils or living populations.
• Contrary to popular belief, evidence indicates that early man was intelligent and highly skilled with an advanced social structure. There is also evidence suggesting their belief in the existence of an afterlife.
• Soft tissues and traces of blood cells have been found in dinosaur fossils supposedly 70 to 250 million years old. (Soft tissues and red blood cells have relatively short life spans.)
• Carbon-14 has been found in coal and diamonds supposedly hundreds of millions of years old. (C-14 has a relatively short life-span.)
• Radioisotope dating suffers from multiple unprovable assumptions—the technique is “fatally flawed”—yet scientists contend as fact what they cannot prove.
• Abundant daughter isotopes are indicative of accelerated nuclear decay associated with creation (expansion, stretching out, or acceleration of the universe from an extremely hot, dense phase when matter and energy were concentrated) and a worldwide flood with massive restructuring of the earth’s lithosphere, not slow and gradual processes over billions of years.
• Evidences of accelerated nuclear decay in igneous rocks found worldwide are helium in zircon crystals, radiohalos and fission tracks, and rapid magnetic field reversals and decay.
• Over a hundred geochronometers indicate a young earth and universe.

Source: evolution: The Greatest Deception in Modern History by Roger G. Gallup
https://www.amazon.com/evolution-Greatest-Deception-Scientific-Evolution/dp/0982997574&tag=ff0d01-20

As Trump would say... that's all wrong!

But in this instance of Trumpism, it's true!

Seriously, though, back to my question... Have only got one answer so far...


Would the world be a better place if there was only one religion, ever?

I have a point somewhere there that I'm trying to get to...

 

[RWS]

Let's imagine it's your religion...

Would the world rock if everyone just believed in your religion?

 

[RWS]

Let's start with the Golden Rule, is it plagerized?

Versions of the Golden Rule in dozens of religions and other sources

 

[RWS]

And Bond, just because you find a quote to copy/paste on the internet of God, does not make it true.

I am not going to spend time responding to each line item. Because that's probably what you want me to do, and it's ridiculous.

I need original stuff, otherwise I can copy/paste way more than you can and at a faster rate...

I don't give a flying freak what your quotes say. I want to hear what you say...

 

[BreezeWood]

There are no known biological processes for evolution to higher levels of organization and complexity—

you are really dense bond - I'll ask again, where does the mechanism reside that is responsible for metamorphosis while the transition is taking place from legs to wings ?



There are no known biological processes for evolution to higher levels ...



that's because it is not biological - home boy ... .




.

 

[james bond]

My last post #2023 seems to have sealed the deal for creation science. This thread should be titled "If Evolution doesn't exist."

If evolution doesn't exist, then we would not be so misinformed. The dumbing down of America must be for political reasons.

How else would an intelligent person explain Hillary Clinton? We would not be voting for a criminal who should be in prison.

 

[james bond]

And Bond, just because you find a quote to copy/paste on the internet of God, does not make it true.

I am not going to spend time responding to each line item. Because that's probably what you want me to do, and it's ridiculous.

I need original stuff, otherwise I can copy/paste way more than you can and at a faster rate...

I don't give a flying freak what your quotes say. I want to hear what you say...

I said you're wrong. Much of evolution is wrong. Except for natural selection which is part of creation science without the species changing into a new species. We have BreezeWood who thinks metamorphosis is evidence ha ha. This is the type of people that Darwinism and evolution has changed. I can rebut point-by-point stupid atheist science arguments, but you cannot rebut intelligent creation science ones. Evolution has made people dumber. It's the dumbing down of America. We already knew that the mainstream media was prejudiced, biased and liberal and the wikileaks just shows how deep this goes. Nobody cares about your australopithecus afarensis or Lucy to visit the museum when it came to the USA. It's buried for good in Ethiopia now. Keep that feces of a fossil over there. OTOH, the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter in Kentucy thrives. Most of this has been covered so I let other creation scientists have their turn.

 

[BreezeWood]

How else would an intelligent person explain Hillary Clinton? We would not be voting for a criminal who should be in prison.

Trump vows to sue all female accusers ...

EarthLink - Top News

Throwing his campaign off-kilter once again, Donald Trump vowed Saturday to sue every woman who has accused him of sexual assault or other inappropriate behavior. He called them "liars" whose allegations he blamed Democrats for orchestrating.

"Every woman lied when they came forward to hurt my campaign," he said. Without offering evidence ...


to bad for you bond, Hillary is the one person that can beat Trump otherwise the true criminal that will end up in jail after the elction would be President voted in by republicans ...

ha ha and it was your turn to win.

.

 

[RWS]

Please, no politics necessary here.

So you're saying that species can't cross over to a new species, and not be mates, but you're ok with natural selection?

Have i got that right?

I'll be honest, that always made me wonder, how a species can cross over, without getting killed before it can reproduce more of its kind. It has to happen in waves of genetic mutations. It's not just one animal that suddenly evolved and created a new species... It's a combination of natural selections, and given more time than 6000 years... yes, it's gonna happen...

You're just limiting yourself to 6000 years. The universe is a very complex thing. Limiting yourself to 6000 years of knowledge, makes you post things like that.

 

[RWS]

In 6000 years, we can only witness natural selection.

We cannot see evolution in such a short span of time. That takes millions of years of natural selection to separate a species.

Yet we have dogs, cats, wolves, lions, bears, meerkats, fish, bacteria, and apple trees. That took a very loooong time. Definitely not 6000 years.

Unless Santa the Creator can poof things into existence exactly as they were 6000 years ago, and bury fossils for fun and giggles, and completely make astronomy and physics be an illusion.

 

[james bond]

Please, no politics necessary here.

So you're saying that species can't cross over to a new species, and not be mates, but you're ok with natural selection?

Have i got that right?

I'll be honest, that always made me wonder, how a species can cross over, without getting killed before it can reproduce more of its kind. It has to happen in waves of genetic mutations. It's not just one animal that suddenly evolved and created a new species... It's a combination of natural selections, and given more time than 6000 years... yes, it's gonna happen...

You're just limiting yourself to 6000 years. The universe is a very complex thing. Limiting yourself to 6000 years of knowledge, makes you post things like that.

I'm not just saying it, but so are millions of educated people in the world. Why do you think BreezeWood posted his metamorphosis example

?

Ha ha.

So the best you can do is is "You're just limiting yourself to 6000 years. The universe is a very complex thing."

Ho hum. I may as well go talk politics. You haven't answered any of my questions, replied to anything using evolution nor got anything right. Just shooting off your pie hole.

Here's something to think about and explode your un-evolved brain. Why did chimpanzee-like apes start walking upright? They already had better locomotion already.

Anyway, I'm off to talk politics. You and BreezeWood can get a room and discuss how metamorphosis is evidence of evolution.

 

[james bond]

In 6000 years, we can only witness natural selection.

We cannot see evolution in such a short span of time. That takes millions of years of natural selection to separate a species.

Yet we have dogs, cats, wolves, lions, bears, meerkats, fish, bacteria, and apple trees. That took a very loooong time. Definitely not 6000 years.

Unless Santa the Creator can poof things into existence exactly as they were 6000 years ago, and bury fossils for fun and giggles, and completely make astronomy and physics be an illusion.

Ha ha. You can't even get evolution right in your first example. They have not been able to explain the dog.

"The origin of man's best friend has been a source of wonder and heated debate for centuries.

Even Charles Darwin was unsure whether the dog's true ancestry could be determined, because dog breeds vary so greatly. In fact, the domestic dog is far more variable in size, shape and behavior than any other living mammal, according to James Serpell, professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine and editor of "The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour, and Interactions With People" (Cambridge University Press, 1995)."

How Did Dogs Get to Be Dogs?

Here's the website that I used to learn about evolution. Why don't you read up on it first before shooting off your piehole ha ha?

Welcome to Evolution 101!

 

[james bond]

When you have read the evolution.berkeley.edu website, then you can start arguing for evolution and not make a fool out of yourself.

On the creation science side, we have baraminology. As I stated previously, natural selection is part of creation science. With dogs, it's not natural selection but artificial selection.

"God displays His nature so clearly in His creatures that all people are without excuse (Romans 1:20). That display includes dog breeds. Charles Darwin, just like the rest of us, must have seen the Creator in the creatures all around him. Several dog breeds were always at his side, but his favorite was Polly, a terrier.

Zuzana Burá ˇ nová | Thinkstockphotos.com

American Hairless Terrier

Despite loving his pets dearly and constantly marveling at their personalities and abilities, Darwin was unwilling to credit their origin with the Creator. Why?

In a series of correspondences with his Christian friend Asa Gray, Darwin discussed why he didn’t believe variation within species was divinely guided.2 Like other Christian biologists in his day, Gray believed life had existed for eons of time and rejected Genesis’s teaching that God’s “very good” creation was corrupted by Adam’s sin. So Darwin showed Gray the logical consequence of his view. If death and suffering were always a part of nature, then his “god” must be unfeeling and distant, and he didn’t trifle with details like species variation. Gray had difficulty disputing Darwin’s claim.

Yet Darwin and the scientific community had no understanding of the complex genetics required to produce variation. Consequently, Darwin thought it should be easy to explain species variation by random natural processes without divine guidance, and he expected experiments with artificial breeding to prove his point. Not so.

Today, research in genetics is exploding, and scientists are beginning to see just how much is involved in producing and inheriting traits. While our understanding of the immense chemical systems necessary to coordinate this diversity has increased by leaps and bounds, researchers recognize that they are seeing only the tip of the iceberg.

Dogs are the focus of ongoing research to solve the mystery of vast variations within a species over a short amount of time. Until recently, many assumed that dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) were a recent subspecies of gray wolves (Canis lupus). As humans began to settle down and farm, wolves supposedly co-evolved with people over thousands of years. But how do you make a domestic dog out of killer wolf? It requires more than changing hair color!"

Suite Dogs

 

[BreezeWood]

It has to happen in waves of genetic mutations. It's not just one animal that suddenly evolved and created a new species...

the mechanism for metamorphosis dictates from one physical presence to another and likewise by the same process common to all beings Spiritually may evolve an entirely new being from the parent to sibling without transitional intermediaries that will replicate from that point forwards.


there's hope bondy, three weeks is an eternity in politics. if Trump leaned left I mighthave voted in his direction, till the "nasty" sealed his demise.

.

 

[RWS]

In 6000 years, we can only witness natural selection.

We cannot see evolution in such a short span of time. That takes millions of years of natural selection to separate a species.

Yet we have dogs, cats, wolves, lions, bears, meerkats, fish, bacteria, and apple trees. That took a very loooong time. Definitely not 6000 years.

Unless Santa the Creator can poof things into existence exactly as they were 6000 years ago, and bury fossils for fun and giggles, and completely make astronomy and physics be an illusion.

Ha ha. You can't even get evolution right in your first example. They have not been able to explain the dog.

"The origin of man's best friend has been a source of wonder and heated debate for centuries.

Even Charles Darwin was unsure whether the dog's true ancestry could be determined, because dog breeds vary so greatly. In fact, the domestic dog is far more variable in size, shape and behavior than any other living mammal, according to James Serpell, professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine and editor of "The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour, and Interactions With People" (Cambridge University Press, 1995)."

How Did Dogs Get to Be Dogs?

Here's the website that I used to learn about evolution. Why don't you read up on it first before shooting off your piehole ha ha?

Welcome to Evolution 101!

I included those organisms in order on purpose. Dogs and cats are a creation of human natural selection. This is the type of selection we normally see in our lifetimes. Though other forms of natural selection, like white and brown moths, occur because of our activity and not us necessarily meddling in their mating rituals. Most of the forms we see of natural selection that occurred in our lifetimes are created by human needs and wastes.

But differentiating a species takes millions of years. Dogs can still mate with wolves. If God created perfect organisms, then there is no need for natural selection. As He would have made them perfect from the get-go.

So allowing natural selection in your 6000-yr Earther doctrine, just means that you need it to continue your argument, but don't want to accept full-blown evolution.

Whatever you read on your religious websites about science, cannot be taken seriously until you know the science. Copy/pasting junk like that just shows that you have no idea what's going on in the world besides your birth-given religion...

What if you were born into a different religion? Would you still believe the stuff you're saying?