If God doesn't exist...

[james bond]

Please clarefy. I don't nind being made fun of. But I'd like to understand the joke.

.

But I'd like to understand the joke.

Recorded history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The earliest chronologies date back to the two earliest civilizations: the ancient Sumerians of Mesopotamia and the Early Dynastic Period of Egypt[3] which emerged independently of each other from roughly 3500 B.C.

Cave paintings (also known as "parietal art") are painted drawings on cave walls or ceilings, mainly of prehistoric origin, to some 40,000 years ago (around 38,000 BCE) in both Asia and Europe.

... 3500 B.C. + 2016 A.D = 5516 recorded history + 38,000 prehistory = 40,016 YEARS



the joke must be that irregardless Bond's claim of dinesours existing with modern man there is still a 34,000 thousand year difference in his claim for the universes 6000 year existance and the chronology of his own postings ....



.

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. What is your evidence for 38,000 years of prehistory?

More evolution chronology, and you are mixing it with mine.

I can validate my chronology. The oldest living trees on the planet are thought to be around 10,000 years and found high on the mountains. Why aren't they found at lower levels? Did some catastrophe occur to explain it like a global flood? And why can scientists radiocarbon date dinosaur fossils to around 10,000 years even though evolution scientists will not accept it as accurate readings? The organic material still remains and can be dated. Different scientists from different lands have been able to radiocarbon date dinosaurs fossils to around 10,000 years.

.

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.

I can validate my chronology.

depends on what your subject matter is Bond -

prehistoric origin, to some 40,000 years ago (around 38,000 BCE) in both Asia and Europe.

- is reputable irregardless which source by the preponderance of verifiable data correlating multiple strata of varying fields of study as were included.


I can validate my chronology ...

your turn Bond, feel free to do so, the life forms during the anarobic atmosphere on Earth to aerobic (free oxygen) as the atmosphere changed and when conducive for dinosaurs and when for primates.

.

You have not and can not validate your chronology nor that you have credibility. If I give you a moon rock, how does one tell how old it is? Show us your knowledge Padwan. Who invented this method of dating? He must be someone who's a celebrity by now.

Lets forget about dating. There are litterally dozens of way to date, some ways less accurate, other ways more; All can be used to find things older then 6000 years But that's not what I mean by chronoligy and you know it.. All over the world there is a pattern in the stratas fossils. The lowest layers contain no life, above that signs of exclusively bacterial life, the layer above that contains bacterial plus marine life, the layer above that you'll find bacterial, marine and amphibian lifeforms, above that dinosaurs and small mamals are added, and finaly in the newest layers humanoids appear. This is true worldwide. You will of course very rarely find all different rock ages represented, altough it does happen. And I didn't add all classes of aimals. The point is tough that the chronoligy of it is always true. So for the last time, no evasions, deflections or not answering. If Genesis is true why does this chronoligy exist and if it doesn't exist give me examples?

I have chronology, but it's not based on radiometric dating. RD was invented by Clair Patterson. I got that from an evolution website. What the creation scientists and other scientists who do not believe in evolution is criticize the method and not knowing how much radioactive material there was in the beginning. If some living thing, plant or animal, died, then we can tell how long they lived. I think we can agree on this. However, we cannot tell when they started living. We can date inanimate things with it, too, as I understand it. With radiocarbon dating, one can date something, assuming it is less than 100,000 years old, and under certain conditions. One of the things that made me question the dating is because every news or article I read on old earth that has to do with evolution has to tell me how old the earth is, how old a type of fossil is or how old the dinosaur or whatever they are talking about is. If these things are facts, then I do not need to be told in every article. Yet, it continued to be done over and over until I started questioning just why they keep repeating themselves. No one repeats the earth is round or the sun is 93 millions of miles (150 millions of km) away each time we discuss it. They only do it in the evolution news and articles. So, what living thing has lived more than 6,000 years old? I already mentioned the trees found high in the mountains, the diamonds found in the coal layer, dinosaur fossils with living tissue still there, etc..

As for the layers, you are not stating fact, but what the evolutionists' claims. They claim that the fossil record shows evolution is true just like you stated. The layers are there because that is where the plants, animals or humans were when they were buried, and is not based on chronology, but location. The chronological age that they claim is based on the assumptions of an old earth and the theory of evolution. It's really a circular argument. These layers prove evolution and its timeline. In evolution, we assume an old earth, and thus, these layers are billions of years old. So, I have shown you did not consider my previous argument of location and not time. How do you know how old these rocks are? By radiometric dating, and I've already showed you how inaccurate it can be and it does not tell us what you assume of a starting point.

 

[james bond]

The evidence for creation. Here are the claims of scientists against evolution on the rock layers and their proof.

Sedimentary rocks are are rocks like sandstone or limestone, but not lava flows. They were formed when mud settled out of the water, and the mud hardened into stone.

Pictures of Red Rock Canyon in Nevada and California.
red rock canyon stte park nevada - Bing images

Sedimentary rocks are often recognized by their layered appearance. The red and gray layers of rock in most of Red Rock Canyon are sedimentary rocks. But notice the rocks at the southern tip of the canyon, where the State of California has so thoughtfully carved away part of the cliff to build the southbound lanes of Highway 14. Those rocks are NOT sedimentary. They are blotchy, and don’t have layers. These are metamorphic rocks.

The metamorphic rocks at the south end of Red Rock Canyon acted as a dam that trapped some muddy water to the north of them. This muddy water formed the red and gray layered rocks that we like to take pictures of.

Until recently, it seemed indisputable that thick layers of sedimentary rocks represented a long period of time. Sedimentary rocks tend to be made up of paper-thin stratifications that one might think were annual deposits, just like annual tree rings. Therefore, geologists believed that thick banks of layered rocks represented long, unbroken records of millions of years of time. The fossils found in the bottom layers, therefore, would be much older than the fossils in the top layers.

Sedimentary rock layers formed by Mt. St. Helens volcano
sedimentary rock layers formed by mt st helens volcano - Bing images

But recent geological events have shown that layered rocks can be formed very quickly. A dramatic demonstration occurred when Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980. The steam and lava coming from the volcano melted the ice cap on Mount St. Helens, causing a huge amount of water to flow down the mountain. This water mixed with dirt and ash to form a lot of very muddy water. This mud quickly turned to rock.

Subsequent eruptions caused more mud flows which eroded canyons in the newly formed rock, exposing layers of sedimentary rock that looked like they had been formed over millions of years. But scientists knew the day and the hour when they were formed.

One might argue that Mount St. Helens is a unique event. But in 1986, Guy Berthault presented a paper to the French Academy of Sciences showing how "multiple laminations form spontaneously during sedimentation of heterogranular mixtures." Subsequent work was presented to the French Academy of Sciences in 1988 and the Bulletin of the Geology Society of France in 1993. These papers were translated into English and published in Creation Ex Nihilo Tehnical Journal (Cr) in 1988, 1990, 1994. It wasn’t until January 8, 1998, that the prestigious journal Nature finally published a similar paper (without reference to Guy Berthault’s work) that came to the same conclusion: sediment commonly settles into finely layered banks.

Not only has it been demonstrated in the laboratory, the simultaneous formation of multiple layers of sedimentary rock has been observed naturally occurring in the Bay of Naples, Italy, and on the ocean floor.

Guy Berthault's Work


Here's an experimental proof of rapid sedimentation

 

[BreezeWood]

I guess it's come to that time where I wrap up. Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you.

may be a repeat, just guessing -

no brainwashing Bond, for some its been a 2016 year known fact ....

.

Evo is not a fact. That's brainwashing. It's a good thing creation science is catching on and being taught in schools nowadays.

.

Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you.

Evo is not a fact. That's brainwashing.

That's brainwashing .


what Bond can not stand is people having an open mind rather than being constrained to his single undocumented book - as being somehow brainwashed by a mysterious conspiracy ... rather than his own state of self complacency.

It's a good thing creation science is catching on and being taught in schools nowadays.

self congratulatory delusion or do you have a link ?

.

It's not hard to google which states teach creation science and that private schools teach it, too.

.

It's not hard to google which states teach creation science and that private schools teach it, too.

there are no state taxpayer funded schools that teach creation science, Podunk.



Bond: and that private schools teach it, too. -

That's brainwashing ... Bond -


no, like you they are brainwashing innocent children ...

.

 

[OZman]

no, like you they are brainwashing innocent children ...

Religions can't wait to fill children's heads with delusions, it is their MO.

“Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.”
― Aristotle, The Philosophy of Aristotle

 

[forkup]

.
... 3500 B.C. + 2016 A.D = 5516 recorded history + 38,000 prehistory = 40,016 YEARS



the joke must be that irregardless Bond's claim of dinesours existing with modern man there is still a 34,000 thousand year difference in his claim for the universes 6000 year existance and the chronology of his own postings ....



.

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. What is your evidence for 38,000 years of prehistory?

More evolution chronology, and you are mixing it with mine.

I can validate my chronology. The oldest living trees on the planet are thought to be around 10,000 years and found high on the mountains. Why aren't they found at lower levels? Did some catastrophe occur to explain it like a global flood? And why can scientists radiocarbon date dinosaur fossils to around 10,000 years even though evolution scientists will not accept it as accurate readings? The organic material still remains and can be dated. Different scientists from different lands have been able to radiocarbon date dinosaurs fossils to around 10,000 years.

.

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.

I can validate my chronology.

depends on what your subject matter is Bond -

prehistoric origin, to some 40,000 years ago (around 38,000 BCE) in both Asia and Europe.

- is reputable irregardless which source by the preponderance of verifiable data correlating multiple strata of varying fields of study as were included.


I can validate my chronology ...

your turn Bond, feel free to do so, the life forms during the anarobic atmosphere on Earth to aerobic (free oxygen) as the atmosphere changed and when conducive for dinosaurs and when for primates.

.

You have not and can not validate your chronology nor that you have credibility. If I give you a moon rock, how does one tell how old it is? Show us your knowledge Padwan. Who invented this method of dating? He must be someone who's a celebrity by now.

Lets forget about dating. There are litterally dozens of way to date, some ways less accurate, other ways more; All can be used to find things older then 6000 years But that's not what I mean by chronoligy and you know it.. All over the world there is a pattern in the stratas fossils. The lowest layers contain no life, above that signs of exclusively bacterial life, the layer above that contains bacterial plus marine life, the layer above that you'll find bacterial, marine and amphibian lifeforms, above that dinosaurs and small mamals are added, and finaly in the newest layers humanoids appear. This is true worldwide. You will of course very rarely find all different rock ages represented, altough it does happen. And I didn't add all classes of aimals. The point is tough that the chronoligy of it is always true. So for the last time, no evasions, deflections or not answering. If Genesis is true why does this chronoligy exist and if it doesn't exist give me examples?

I have chronology, but it's not based on radiometric dating. RD was invented by Clair Patterson. I got that from an evolution website. What the creation scientists and other scientists who do not believe in evolution is criticize the method and not knowing how much radioactive material there was in the beginning. If some living thing, plant or animal, died, then we can tell how long they lived. I think we can agree on this. However, we cannot tell when they started living. We can date inanimate things with it, too, as I understand it. With radiocarbon dating, one can date something, assuming it is less than 100,000 years old, and under certain conditions. One of the things that made me question the dating is because every news or article I read on old earth that has to do with evolution has to tell me how old the earth is, how old a type of fossil is or how old the dinosaur or whatever they are talking about is. If these things are facts, then I do not need to be told in every article. Yet, it continued to be done over and over until I started questioning just why they keep repeating themselves. No one repeats the earth is round or the sun is 93 millions of miles (150 millions of km) away each time we discuss it. They only do it in the evolution news and articles. So, what living thing has lived more than 6,000 years old? I already mentioned the trees found high in the mountains, the diamonds found in the coal layer, dinosaur fossils with living tissue still there, etc..

As for the layers, you are not stating fact, but what the evolutionists' claims. They claim that the fossil record shows evolution is true just like you stated. The layers are there because that is where the plants, animals or humans were when they were buried, and is not based on chronology, but location. The chronological age that they claim is based on the assumptions of an old earth and the theory of evolution. It's really a circular argument. These layers prove evolution and its timeline. In evolution, we assume an old earth, and thus, these layers are billions of years old. So, I have shown you did not consider my previous argument of location and not time. How do you know how old these rocks are? By radiometric dating, and I've already showed you how inaccurate it can be and it does not tell us what you assume of a starting point.

So your first paragraph is a deflection and your second paragraph is an evasion, since you didn't give ANY source just the old argument you're wrong. If the chronoligy is not true give me examples remember. I will not let go of this subject nore will I continue adressing your post until you can offer more then that. It's not a circular argument since I'm not talking about dating. I'm talking about the order fossils appear physicaly. I know that's an ankward fact to you but there it is

 

[james bond]

I guess it's come to that time where I wrap up. Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you.

may be a repeat, just guessing -

no brainwashing Bond, for some its been a 2016 year known fact ....

.

Evo is not a fact. That's brainwashing. It's a good thing creation science is catching on and being taught in schools nowadays.

.

Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you.

Evo is not a fact. That's brainwashing.

That's brainwashing .


what Bond can not stand is people having an open mind rather than being constrained to his single undocumented book - as being somehow brainwashed by a mysterious conspiracy ... rather than his own state of self complacency.

It's a good thing creation science is catching on and being taught in schools nowadays.

self congratulatory delusion or do you have a link ?

.

It's not hard to google which states teach creation science and that private schools teach it, too.

.

It's not hard to google which states teach creation science and that private schools teach it, too.

there are no state taxpayer funded schools that teach creation science, Podunk.



Bond: and that private schools teach it, too. -

That's brainwashing ... Bond -


no, like you they are brainwashing innocent children ...

.

Ha ha. Google again. You got all that atheist stuff stuck in your head.

I just gave you the experimental evidence and Mt. St. Helens to explain the geographic layers. It is based on location and not time as the layers do not take millions of years to form. Again, atheist scientists are wrong.

In case you missed it, I say he who laughs last, laughs best in the battle between atheists and creationists. I think that is one of the lessons of Aesop's Fables, "He laughs best that laughs last."

If I win, you'll be hearing this as JB's last laugh. I loved those Batman movies of Christopher Nolan.

 

[james bond]

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. What is your evidence for 38,000 years of prehistory?

More evolution chronology, and you are mixing it with mine.

I can validate my chronology. The oldest living trees on the planet are thought to be around 10,000 years and found high on the mountains. Why aren't they found at lower levels? Did some catastrophe occur to explain it like a global flood? And why can scientists radiocarbon date dinosaur fossils to around 10,000 years even though evolution scientists will not accept it as accurate readings? The organic material still remains and can be dated. Different scientists from different lands have been able to radiocarbon date dinosaurs fossils to around 10,000 years.

.

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.

I can validate my chronology.

depends on what your subject matter is Bond -

prehistoric origin, to some 40,000 years ago (around 38,000 BCE) in both Asia and Europe.

- is reputable irregardless which source by the preponderance of verifiable data correlating multiple strata of varying fields of study as were included.


I can validate my chronology ...

your turn Bond, feel free to do so, the life forms during the anarobic atmosphere on Earth to aerobic (free oxygen) as the atmosphere changed and when conducive for dinosaurs and when for primates.

.

You have not and can not validate your chronology nor that you have credibility. If I give you a moon rock, how does one tell how old it is? Show us your knowledge Padwan. Who invented this method of dating? He must be someone who's a celebrity by now.

Lets forget about dating. There are litterally dozens of way to date, some ways less accurate, other ways more; All can be used to find things older then 6000 years But that's not what I mean by chronoligy and you know it.. All over the world there is a pattern in the stratas fossils. The lowest layers contain no life, above that signs of exclusively bacterial life, the layer above that contains bacterial plus marine life, the layer above that you'll find bacterial, marine and amphibian lifeforms, above that dinosaurs and small mamals are added, and finaly in the newest layers humanoids appear. This is true worldwide. You will of course very rarely find all different rock ages represented, altough it does happen. And I didn't add all classes of aimals. The point is tough that the chronoligy of it is always true. So for the last time, no evasions, deflections or not answering. If Genesis is true why does this chronoligy exist and if it doesn't exist give me examples?

I have chronology, but it's not based on radiometric dating. RD was invented by Clair Patterson. I got that from an evolution website. What the creation scientists and other scientists who do not believe in evolution is criticize the method and not knowing how much radioactive material there was in the beginning. If some living thing, plant or animal, died, then we can tell how long they lived. I think we can agree on this. However, we cannot tell when they started living. We can date inanimate things with it, too, as I understand it. With radiocarbon dating, one can date something, assuming it is less than 100,000 years old, and under certain conditions. One of the things that made me question the dating is because every news or article I read on old earth that has to do with evolution has to tell me how old the earth is, how old a type of fossil is or how old the dinosaur or whatever they are talking about is. If these things are facts, then I do not need to be told in every article. Yet, it continued to be done over and over until I started questioning just why they keep repeating themselves. No one repeats the earth is round or the sun is 93 millions of miles (150 millions of km) away each time we discuss it. They only do it in the evolution news and articles. So, what living thing has lived more than 6,000 years old? I already mentioned the trees found high in the mountains, the diamonds found in the coal layer, dinosaur fossils with living tissue still there, etc..

As for the layers, you are not stating fact, but what the evolutionists' claims. They claim that the fossil record shows evolution is true just like you stated. The layers are there because that is where the plants, animals or humans were when they were buried, and is not based on chronology, but location. The chronological age that they claim is based on the assumptions of an old earth and the theory of evolution. It's really a circular argument. These layers prove evolution and its timeline. In evolution, we assume an old earth, and thus, these layers are billions of years old. So, I have shown you did not consider my previous argument of location and not time. How do you know how old these rocks are? By radiometric dating, and I've already showed you how inaccurate it can be and it does not tell us what you assume of a starting point.

So your first paragraph is a deflection and your second paragraph is an evasion, since you didn't give ANY source just the old argument you're wrong. If the chronoligy is not true give me examples remember. I will not let go of this subject nore will I continue adressing your post until you can offer more then that. It's not a circular argument since I'm not talking about dating. I'm talking about the order fossils appear physicaly. I know that's an ankward fact to you but there it is

First, I think I know more than you about evolution. All of that which you stated for chronological layers are not facts. They're claims by secular scientists due to their beliefs that the earth is old and radiometric dating, discovered by little known Clair Patterson, who gave it to them in 1956 for the age of the earth. The arguments we are having are nothing new, but go back to 1795 and the 1800s. I have been giving you examples all this time, such as the where the names come from for the different layers, catastrophism (which is being usurped by the secular scientists now) vs uniformitarianism, the formation of the Cliffs of Dover, the Australian land formation, ocean floor sediment, coelacanth and dinosaurs, the moon, moon rocks, and so on, and yet you do not see. The last couple of posts, I gave you experimental evidence. That is the ultimate. I gave you Mt. St. Helens which demonstrates the sedimentary layers. Go read and watch those videos. Where is the evolutionists experimental evidence for chronological layers? There is none. You need to have an open mind. It's stuck in the chronology mud of the evolutionists.

This isn't about who won the debate, which I have clearly won, but to compare the evidence of the two sides and judge for yourself. Maybe I went a little further than most by reading some of the Bible. I used to think like you until the early 2000s. but evolution did not answer the questions people had and I had. It was around 2011 that the evo stuff really hit the fan in the media. Actually, the battle started up again in 1925 with the Scopes trial, books by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in the 60s, and more legal trials of creation vs evolution in 1980-90. When comparing the two scientific evidence, it was nolo contendere for creation. The battle for our young peoples minds will continue. It really isn't about religion, but science.

 

[forkup]

.
depends on what your subject matter is Bond - - is reputable irregardless which source by the preponderance of verifiable data correlating multiple strata of varying fields of study as were included.


I can validate my chronology ...

your turn Bond, feel free to do so, the life forms during the anarobic atmosphere on Earth to aerobic (free oxygen) as the atmosphere changed and when conducive for dinosaurs and when for primates.

.

You have not and can not validate your chronology nor that you have credibility. If I give you a moon rock, how does one tell how old it is? Show us your knowledge Padwan. Who invented this method of dating? He must be someone who's a celebrity by now.

Lets forget about dating. There are litterally dozens of way to date, some ways less accurate, other ways more; All can be used to find things older then 6000 years But that's not what I mean by chronoligy and you know it.. All over the world there is a pattern in the stratas fossils. The lowest layers contain no life, above that signs of exclusively bacterial life, the layer above that contains bacterial plus marine life, the layer above that you'll find bacterial, marine and amphibian lifeforms, above that dinosaurs and small mamals are added, and finaly in the newest layers humanoids appear. This is true worldwide. You will of course very rarely find all different rock ages represented, altough it does happen. And I didn't add all classes of aimals. The point is tough that the chronoligy of it is always true. So for the last time, no evasions, deflections or not answering. If Genesis is true why does this chronoligy exist and if it doesn't exist give me examples?

I have chronology, but it's not based on radiometric dating. RD was invented by Clair Patterson. I got that from an evolution website. What the creation scientists and other scientists who do not believe in evolution is criticize the method and not knowing how much radioactive material there was in the beginning. If some living thing, plant or animal, died, then we can tell how long they lived. I think we can agree on this. However, we cannot tell when they started living. We can date inanimate things with it, too, as I understand it. With radiocarbon dating, one can date something, assuming it is less than 100,000 years old, and under certain conditions. One of the things that made me question the dating is because every news or article I read on old earth that has to do with evolution has to tell me how old the earth is, how old a type of fossil is or how old the dinosaur or whatever they are talking about is. If these things are facts, then I do not need to be told in every article. Yet, it continued to be done over and over until I started questioning just why they keep repeating themselves. No one repeats the earth is round or the sun is 93 millions of miles (150 millions of km) away each time we discuss it. They only do it in the evolution news and articles. So, what living thing has lived more than 6,000 years old? I already mentioned the trees found high in the mountains, the diamonds found in the coal layer, dinosaur fossils with living tissue still there, etc..

As for the layers, you are not stating fact, but what the evolutionists' claims. They claim that the fossil record shows evolution is true just like you stated. The layers are there because that is where the plants, animals or humans were when they were buried, and is not based on chronology, but location. The chronological age that they claim is based on the assumptions of an old earth and the theory of evolution. It's really a circular argument. These layers prove evolution and its timeline. In evolution, we assume an old earth, and thus, these layers are billions of years old. So, I have shown you did not consider my previous argument of location and not time. How do you know how old these rocks are? By radiometric dating, and I've already showed you how inaccurate it can be and it does not tell us what you assume of a starting point.

So your first paragraph is a deflection and your second paragraph is an evasion, since you didn't give ANY source just the old argument you're wrong. If the chronoligy is not true give me examples remember. I will not let go of this subject nore will I continue adressing your post until you can offer more then that. It's not a circular argument since I'm not talking about dating. I'm talking about the order fossils appear physicaly. I know that's an ankward fact to you but there it is

First, I think I know more than you about evolution. All of that which you stated for chronological layers are not facts. They're claims by secular scientists due to their beliefs that the earth is old and radiometric dating, discovered by little known Clair Patterson, who gave it to them in 1956 for the age of the earth. The arguments we are having are nothing new, but go back to 1795 and the 1800s. I have been giving you examples all this time, such as the where the names come from for the different layers, catastrophism (which is being usurped by the secular scientists now) vs uniformitarianism, the formation of the Cliffs of Dover, the Australian land formation, ocean floor sediment, coelacanth and dinosaurs, the moon, moon rocks, and so on, and yet you do not see. The last couple of posts, I gave you experimental evidence. That is the ultimate. I gave you Mt. St. Helens which demonstrates the sedimentary layers. Go read and watch those videos. Where is the evolutionists experimental evidence for chronological layers? There is none. You need to have an open mind. It's stuck in the chronology mud of the evolutionists.

This isn't about who won the debate, which I have clearly won, but to compare the evidence of the two sides and judge for yourself. Maybe I went a little further than most by reading some of the Bible. I used to think like you until the early 2000s. but evolution did not answer the questions people had and I had. It was around 2011 that the evo stuff really hit the fan in the media. Actually, the battle started up again in 1925 with the Scopes trial, books by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in the 60s, and more legal trials of creation vs evolution in 1980-90. When comparing the two scientific evidence, it was nolo contendere for creation. The battle for our young peoples minds will continue. It really isn't about religion, but science.

I asked one simple thing, no deflections, no evasions, no avoiding the subject. If the cronology is wrong give me examples.... Now you are avoiding, deflecting, evading and blustering. List of fossil sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is a list of known fossil sites. Like I said you can leave the dating alone, altough not every site here is dated using radiometric dating. You have a hypothesis, namely all KINDS lived togheter, so it's logical that all KINDS will be found togheter. Proof it.

 

[BreezeWood]

may be a repeat, just guessing -

no brainwashing Bond, for some its been a 2016 year known fact ....

.

Evo is not a fact. That's brainwashing. It's a good thing creation science is catching on and being taught in schools nowadays.

.

Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you.

Evo is not a fact. That's brainwashing.

That's brainwashing .


what Bond can not stand is people having an open mind rather than being constrained to his single undocumented book - as being somehow brainwashed by a mysterious conspiracy ... rather than his own state of self complacency.

It's a good thing creation science is catching on and being taught in schools nowadays.

self congratulatory delusion or do you have a link ?

.

It's not hard to google which states teach creation science and that private schools teach it, too.

.

It's not hard to google which states teach creation science and that private schools teach it, too.

there are no state taxpayer funded schools that teach creation science, Podunk.



Bond: and that private schools teach it, too. -

That's brainwashing ... Bond -


no, like you they are brainwashing innocent children ...

.

Ha ha. Google again. You got all that atheist stuff stuck in your head.

I just gave you the experimental evidence and Mt. St. Helens to explain the geographic layers. It is based on location and not time as the layers do not take millions of years to form. Again, atheist scientists are wrong.

In case you missed it, I say he who laughs last, laughs best in the battle between atheists and creationists. I think that is one of the lessons of Aesop's Fables, "He laughs best that laughs last."

If I win, you'll be hearing this as JB's last laugh. I loved those Batman movies of Christopher Nolan.

.

Ha ha. Google again.

there are no taxpayer funded institutions teaching creationist ideology as science ...

I say he who laughs last, laughs best ... I think that is one of the lessons of Aesop's Fables,

if so they plagiarized Confucius ... similar to your leap from reality.


haha

.

 

[james bond]

You have not and can not validate your chronology nor that you have credibility. If I give you a moon rock, how does one tell how old it is? Show us your knowledge Padwan. Who invented this method of dating? He must be someone who's a celebrity by now.

Lets forget about dating. There are litterally dozens of way to date, some ways less accurate, other ways more; All can be used to find things older then 6000 years But that's not what I mean by chronoligy and you know it.. All over the world there is a pattern in the stratas fossils. The lowest layers contain no life, above that signs of exclusively bacterial life, the layer above that contains bacterial plus marine life, the layer above that you'll find bacterial, marine and amphibian lifeforms, above that dinosaurs and small mamals are added, and finaly in the newest layers humanoids appear. This is true worldwide. You will of course very rarely find all different rock ages represented, altough it does happen. And I didn't add all classes of aimals. The point is tough that the chronoligy of it is always true. So for the last time, no evasions, deflections or not answering. If Genesis is true why does this chronoligy exist and if it doesn't exist give me examples?

I have chronology, but it's not based on radiometric dating. RD was invented by Clair Patterson. I got that from an evolution website. What the creation scientists and other scientists who do not believe in evolution is criticize the method and not knowing how much radioactive material there was in the beginning. If some living thing, plant or animal, died, then we can tell how long they lived. I think we can agree on this. However, we cannot tell when they started living. We can date inanimate things with it, too, as I understand it. With radiocarbon dating, one can date something, assuming it is less than 100,000 years old, and under certain conditions. One of the things that made me question the dating is because every news or article I read on old earth that has to do with evolution has to tell me how old the earth is, how old a type of fossil is or how old the dinosaur or whatever they are talking about is. If these things are facts, then I do not need to be told in every article. Yet, it continued to be done over and over until I started questioning just why they keep repeating themselves. No one repeats the earth is round or the sun is 93 millions of miles (150 millions of km) away each time we discuss it. They only do it in the evolution news and articles. So, what living thing has lived more than 6,000 years old? I already mentioned the trees found high in the mountains, the diamonds found in the coal layer, dinosaur fossils with living tissue still there, etc..

As for the layers, you are not stating fact, but what the evolutionists' claims. They claim that the fossil record shows evolution is true just like you stated. The layers are there because that is where the plants, animals or humans were when they were buried, and is not based on chronology, but location. The chronological age that they claim is based on the assumptions of an old earth and the theory of evolution. It's really a circular argument. These layers prove evolution and its timeline. In evolution, we assume an old earth, and thus, these layers are billions of years old. So, I have shown you did not consider my previous argument of location and not time. How do you know how old these rocks are? By radiometric dating, and I've already showed you how inaccurate it can be and it does not tell us what you assume of a starting point.

So your first paragraph is a deflection and your second paragraph is an evasion, since you didn't give ANY source just the old argument you're wrong. If the chronoligy is not true give me examples remember. I will not let go of this subject nore will I continue adressing your post until you can offer more then that. It's not a circular argument since I'm not talking about dating. I'm talking about the order fossils appear physicaly. I know that's an ankward fact to you but there it is

First, I think I know more than you about evolution. All of that which you stated for chronological layers are not facts. They're claims by secular scientists due to their beliefs that the earth is old and radiometric dating, discovered by little known Clair Patterson, who gave it to them in 1956 for the age of the earth. The arguments we are having are nothing new, but go back to 1795 and the 1800s. I have been giving you examples all this time, such as the where the names come from for the different layers, catastrophism (which is being usurped by the secular scientists now) vs uniformitarianism, the formation of the Cliffs of Dover, the Australian land formation, ocean floor sediment, coelacanth and dinosaurs, the moon, moon rocks, and so on, and yet you do not see. The last couple of posts, I gave you experimental evidence. That is the ultimate. I gave you Mt. St. Helens which demonstrates the sedimentary layers. Go read and watch those videos. Where is the evolutionists experimental evidence for chronological layers? There is none. You need to have an open mind. It's stuck in the chronology mud of the evolutionists.

This isn't about who won the debate, which I have clearly won, but to compare the evidence of the two sides and judge for yourself. Maybe I went a little further than most by reading some of the Bible. I used to think like you until the early 2000s. but evolution did not answer the questions people had and I had. It was around 2011 that the evo stuff really hit the fan in the media. Actually, the battle started up again in 1925 with the Scopes trial, books by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in the 60s, and more legal trials of creation vs evolution in 1980-90. When comparing the two scientific evidence, it was nolo contendere for creation. The battle for our young peoples minds will continue. It really isn't about religion, but science.

I asked one simple thing, no deflections, no evasions, no avoiding the subject. If the cronology is wrong give me examples.... Now you are avoiding, deflecting, evading and blustering. List of fossil sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is a list of known fossil sites. Like I said you can leave the dating alone, altough not every site here is dated using radiometric dating. You have a hypothesis, namely all KINDS lived togheter, so it's logical that all KINDS will be found togheter. Proof it.

Ha ha. I already gave them to you several times. The fossil record can be used to argue for both sides. However, is the record correct if stratification happens from top-down and not bottom-up? I think you do not have the perspicacity to let go of your presuppositions about evolution and then compare the two arguments side-by-side. The notion that evolution is a scientific theory while creation is nothing more than religious mysticism is blatantly false, and I think I have more than adequately shown that. Any rational person would be able to pull out your basic arguments and extract out my basic arguments and compare them side-by-side.

This, in lieu of, not knowing about the Bible. While the Bible is an important document that drives creation science, the intent is to extract the truth and not present something used to convert someone whether they be atheist or another religion. Secular scientists have their own "truth" theories based on their own scientists and celebrities such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and so on. With the Bible, the creationists have God on their side. My intention was not to present a religious argument, but a scientific one and I think I've done that.

In the end, I presented an experimental and testable, as well as a natural one as evidence. I also presented testable evidence with the atomic clocks and spacetime. I presented testable evidence of electromagnetic propulsion to be used in traveling at the speed of light. I gave evidence for the distance between the earth and the moon and how one can tell how old the earth is. I showed that one cannot measure with any accuracy the distance to the nearest sun (star) in another galaxy. I agreed that one can map the positions of stars, moon, and other planets by knowing the date. I presented documented evidence that the layers of the earth are based on location and not time.

I presented a logical argument for the existence of a Creator or God with the Kalam Cosmological Argument and other logic arguments. I presented historical truths about the hidden cultural artifacts showing dinosaurs were called dragons before the word "dinosaur" was coined. I presented the testability of natural selection and genetics which are part of both creation and evolution sciences. Evolutionists try to claim it as their own and mislead people into thinking that is what evolution is. I've presented evidence that creation scientists have been shut out of the scientific establishment by not accepting any of the arguments of creation scientists. I've pointed out that this is getting only one side of the story. I gave evidence that evolution is driven by money or grants given to those scientists that find evidence for evolution, no matter how misplaced it could be. I've pointed out that the media tries to use evolutionary ideas in their articles by pointing out the chronology of evolution every chance they get. I've pointed out that all of this ToE is wrong. If it was true, then everyone would not have to be told of an old earth over and over. They would just know it as fact.

In addition to this, I've pointed out the fallacies in the evolutionists arguments with their radiometric dating, ideas that things like a macro-change in species could happen by chance in nature given enough time. We didn't get into that, but that is called mutation. Mutation is generally negative or neutral. It does not produce positive traits for a faster, stronger, and better species. This has been documented in scientific tests, observations, and experiments.

I've shown that atheist scientists like Carl Sagan was wrong with their theories on stuff of like (see Miller-Uray experiment). I've stated that evolutionists cannot and have not created any forms of life -- even the basic building block of a protein molecule (can only be created "within" a cell. I've pointed out and argued about beauty and complexity cannot come from evolution, but from creation or an intelligent designer. I've presented that parsimony shows that the creation side rules all.

All of the denial of the above is what I would call being brainwashed, forkup. I've also pointed out that we all will find out in the end which one of us is right and spoke the truth. I mentioned the existence of consciousness at the near-death stage and what happens. Beyond that, actual death, is not known and cannot possibly be known. That is what God said in the Bible even before we got to that stage with neurology and the medical sciences. Again, he who laughs last, laughs best, Mr. Forkup. I will be laughing loud and hearty when your time is up. If I am right, then you will clearly hear. If you and evolutionists are right, all that evolution and billions of years ends up with a relatively short life and people saying, "Is that all there is?" No judgment. No consequences. Just loss of consciousness and death. Ha ha.

 

[james bond]

Evo is not a fact. That's brainwashing. It's a good thing creation science is catching on and being taught in schools nowadays.

.

Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you.

Evo is not a fact. That's brainwashing.

That's brainwashing .


what Bond can not stand is people having an open mind rather than being constrained to his single undocumented book - as being somehow brainwashed by a mysterious conspiracy ... rather than his own state of self complacency.

It's a good thing creation science is catching on and being taught in schools nowadays.

self congratulatory delusion or do you have a link ?

.

It's not hard to google which states teach creation science and that private schools teach it, too.

.

It's not hard to google which states teach creation science and that private schools teach it, too.

there are no state taxpayer funded schools that teach creation science, Podunk.



Bond: and that private schools teach it, too. -

That's brainwashing ... Bond -


no, like you they are brainwashing innocent children ...

.

Ha ha. Google again. You got all that atheist stuff stuck in your head.

I just gave you the experimental evidence and Mt. St. Helens to explain the geographic layers. It is based on location and not time as the layers do not take millions of years to form. Again, atheist scientists are wrong.

In case you missed it, I say he who laughs last, laughs best in the battle between atheists and creationists. I think that is one of the lessons of Aesop's Fables, "He laughs best that laughs last."

If I win, you'll be hearing this as JB's last laugh. I loved those Batman movies of Christopher Nolan.

.

Ha ha. Google again.

there are no taxpayer funded institutions teaching creationist ideology as science ...

I say he who laughs last, laughs best ... I think that is one of the lessons of Aesop's Fables,

if so they plagiarized Confucius ... similar to your leap from reality.


haha

.

No plagiarism. I gave credit to Aesop. Again, you are wrong. Lol.

 

[forkup]

Lets forget about dating. There are litterally dozens of way to date, some ways less accurate, other ways more; All can be used to find things older then 6000 years But that's not what I mean by chronoligy and you know it.. All over the world there is a pattern in the stratas fossils. The lowest layers contain no life, above that signs of exclusively bacterial life, the layer above that contains bacterial plus marine life, the layer above that you'll find bacterial, marine and amphibian lifeforms, above that dinosaurs and small mamals are added, and finaly in the newest layers humanoids appear. This is true worldwide. You will of course very rarely find all different rock ages represented, altough it does happen. And I didn't add all classes of aimals. The point is tough that the chronoligy of it is always true. So for the last time, no evasions, deflections or not answering. If Genesis is true why does this chronoligy exist and if it doesn't exist give me examples?

I have chronology, but it's not based on radiometric dating. RD was invented by Clair Patterson. I got that from an evolution website. What the creation scientists and other scientists who do not believe in evolution is criticize the method and not knowing how much radioactive material there was in the beginning. If some living thing, plant or animal, died, then we can tell how long they lived. I think we can agree on this. However, we cannot tell when they started living. We can date inanimate things with it, too, as I understand it. With radiocarbon dating, one can date something, assuming it is less than 100,000 years old, and under certain conditions. One of the things that made me question the dating is because every news or article I read on old earth that has to do with evolution has to tell me how old the earth is, how old a type of fossil is or how old the dinosaur or whatever they are talking about is. If these things are facts, then I do not need to be told in every article. Yet, it continued to be done over and over until I started questioning just why they keep repeating themselves. No one repeats the earth is round or the sun is 93 millions of miles (150 millions of km) away each time we discuss it. They only do it in the evolution news and articles. So, what living thing has lived more than 6,000 years old? I already mentioned the trees found high in the mountains, the diamonds found in the coal layer, dinosaur fossils with living tissue still there, etc..

As for the layers, you are not stating fact, but what the evolutionists' claims. They claim that the fossil record shows evolution is true just like you stated. The layers are there because that is where the plants, animals or humans were when they were buried, and is not based on chronology, but location. The chronological age that they claim is based on the assumptions of an old earth and the theory of evolution. It's really a circular argument. These layers prove evolution and its timeline. In evolution, we assume an old earth, and thus, these layers are billions of years old. So, I have shown you did not consider my previous argument of location and not time. How do you know how old these rocks are? By radiometric dating, and I've already showed you how inaccurate it can be and it does not tell us what you assume of a starting point.

So your first paragraph is a deflection and your second paragraph is an evasion, since you didn't give ANY source just the old argument you're wrong. If the chronoligy is not true give me examples remember. I will not let go of this subject nore will I continue adressing your post until you can offer more then that. It's not a circular argument since I'm not talking about dating. I'm talking about the order fossils appear physicaly. I know that's an ankward fact to you but there it is

First, I think I know more than you about evolution. All of that which you stated for chronological layers are not facts. They're claims by secular scientists due to their beliefs that the earth is old and radiometric dating, discovered by little known Clair Patterson, who gave it to them in 1956 for the age of the earth. The arguments we are having are nothing new, but go back to 1795 and the 1800s. I have been giving you examples all this time, such as the where the names come from for the different layers, catastrophism (which is being usurped by the secular scientists now) vs uniformitarianism, the formation of the Cliffs of Dover, the Australian land formation, ocean floor sediment, coelacanth and dinosaurs, the moon, moon rocks, and so on, and yet you do not see. The last couple of posts, I gave you experimental evidence. That is the ultimate. I gave you Mt. St. Helens which demonstrates the sedimentary layers. Go read and watch those videos. Where is the evolutionists experimental evidence for chronological layers? There is none. You need to have an open mind. It's stuck in the chronology mud of the evolutionists.

This isn't about who won the debate, which I have clearly won, but to compare the evidence of the two sides and judge for yourself. Maybe I went a little further than most by reading some of the Bible. I used to think like you until the early 2000s. but evolution did not answer the questions people had and I had. It was around 2011 that the evo stuff really hit the fan in the media. Actually, the battle started up again in 1925 with the Scopes trial, books by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in the 60s, and more legal trials of creation vs evolution in 1980-90. When comparing the two scientific evidence, it was nolo contendere for creation. The battle for our young peoples minds will continue. It really isn't about religion, but science.

I asked one simple thing, no deflections, no evasions, no avoiding the subject. If the cronology is wrong give me examples.... Now you are avoiding, deflecting, evading and blustering. List of fossil sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is a list of known fossil sites. Like I said you can leave the dating alone, altough not every site here is dated using radiometric dating. You have a hypothesis, namely all KINDS lived togheter, so it's logical that all KINDS will be found togheter. Proof it.

Ha ha. I already gave them to you several times. The fossil record can be used to argue for both sides. However, is the record correct if stratification happens from top-down and not bottom-up? I think you do not have the perspicacity to let go of your presuppositions about evolution and then compare the two arguments side-by-side. The notion that evolution is a scientific theory while creation is nothing more than religious mysticism is blatantly false, and I think I have more than adequately shown that. Any rational person would be able to pull out your basic arguments and extract out my basic arguments and compare them side-by-side.

This, in lieu of, not knowing about the Bible. While the Bible is an important document that supplements creation science, the intent is to extract the truth and not present something used to convert someone whether they be atheist or another religion. Secular scientists have their own "truth" theories based on their own scientists and celebrities such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and so on. With the Bible, the creationists have God on their side. My intention was not to present a religious argument, but a scientific one and I think I've did that.

In the end, I presented an experimental and testable, as well as a natural one as evidence. I also presented testable evidence with the atomic clocks and spacetime. I presented testable evidence of electromagnetic propulsion to be used in traveling at the speed of light. I gave evidence for the distance between the earth and the moon and how one can tell how old the earth is. I showed that one cannot measure with any accuracy the distance to the nearest sun (star) in another galaxy. I agreed that one can map the positions of stars, moon, and other planets by knowing the date. I presented documented evidence that the layers of the earth are based on location and not time.

I presented a logical argument for the existence of a Creator or God with the Kalam Cosmological Argument and other logic arguments. I presented historical truths about the hidden cultural artifacts showing dinosaurs were called dragons before the word "dinosaur" was coined. I presented the testability of natural selection and genetics which are part of both creation and evolution sciences. Evolutionists try to claim it as their own and mislead people into thinking that is what evolution is. I've presented evidence that creation scientists have been shut out of the scientific establishment by not accepting any of the arguments of creation scientists. I've pointed out that this is getting only one side of the story. I gave evidence that evolution is driven by money or grants given to those scientists that find evidence for evolution, no matter how misplaced it could be. I've pointed out that the media tries to use evolutionary ideas in their articles by pointing out the chronology of evolution every chance they get. I've pointed out that all of this ToE is wrong. If it was true, then everyone would not have to be told of an old earth over and over. They would just know it as fact.

In addition to this, I've pointed out the fallacies in the evolutionists arguments with their radiometric dating, ideas that things like a macro-change in species could happen by chance in nature given enough time. We didn't get into that, but that is called mutation. Mutation is generally negative or neutral. It does not produce positive traits for a faster, stronger, and better species. This has been documented in scientific tests, observations, and experiments.

I've shown that atheist scientists like Carl Sagan was wrong with their theories on stuff of like (see Miller-Uray experiment). I've stated that evolutionists cannot and have not created any forms of life -- even the basic building block of a protein molecule (can only be created "within" a cell. I've pointed out and argued about beauty and complexity cannot come from evolution, but from creation or an intelligent designer. I've presented that parsimony shows that the creation side rules all.

All of the denial of the above is what I would call being brainwashed, forkup. I've also pointed out that we all will find out in the end which one of us is right and spoke the truth. I mentioned the existence of consciousness at the near-death stage and what happens. Beyond that, actual death, is not known and cannot possibly be known. That is what God said in the Bible even before we got to that stage with neurology and the medical sciences. Again, he who laughs last, laughs best, Mr. Forkup. I will be laughing loud and hearty when your time is up. If I am right, then you will clearly hear. If you and evolutionists are right, all that evolution and billions of years ends up with a relatively short life and people saying, "Is that all there is?" No judgment. No consequences. Just loss of consciousness and death. Ha ha.

You have shown exactly zero testable theories. You have shown myth, filosofy, theoligy, hell you even try to site the Loch Ness monster as proof. The only fault you have shown with radiometric dating is that it comes out with dates you don't agree with. You haven't adressed genetic similarities, PROVEN, TESTABLE simularities, you haven't explained cosmic distances and how we see light from far of places, exept saying somehow science forgot to take spacetime into account. You somehow try to admit survival of the fittest, but don't accept it's logical conclusion. You can't explain away the simple physical impossibility of 8 ppl building and manning the biggest wooden boat ever conceived, stocking it with enough food and fresh water to take care of what conservativly using creationist estimates 10000 plus animals for a full year. The fact that science makes mistakes is the strenght of science we are not married to our ideas. You say Creationism is scientific and yet you offer nothing of proof. In the course of this discussion I have done extensive research on the diiferent claims made in creatonism. I found that even amongst yourselfs you guys can't even agree on what you guys disagree on. this guy for instance knows stratafication of species happens and then gives a completly bizar explanation Like even in this post. Top bottom, bottem up, dated, sideways it matters not a single thing, the fact of the matter is something you still haven't shown any proof of. Unless you can come up with a way why stratafication would happen in the same order, excluding the same types of species all across the earth you lose. I have seen 3 different sets of semi-scientific flood events, all thouroghly debunked. I have shown you a creationist geoligist trying to create whirlpools that suck dinosaurs to the bottom. On and ON but you feel like you won? Guess it has to be nice to live in a world where facts take a backseat to your own beliefs but I don't roll that way. Like I said I have asked now at least 6 times of you to come up with proof to something wich is a long standing pro evolution argument. An argument wich is easily testable. And since you always refer to secular scientist. This had to have been tested by your Creasionist scientist. You have come up with nothing. That is a fact. And believe me I let you of easy since I didn't make you argue dating.

 

[BreezeWood]

.





That's brainwashing .


what Bond can not stand is people having an open mind rather than being constrained to his single undocumented book - as being somehow brainwashed by a mysterious conspiracy ... rather than his own state of self complacency.



self congratulatory delusion or do you have a link ?

.

It's not hard to google which states teach creation science and that private schools teach it, too.

.

It's not hard to google which states teach creation science and that private schools teach it, too.

there are no state taxpayer funded schools that teach creation science, Podunk.



Bond: and that private schools teach it, too. -

That's brainwashing ... Bond -


no, like you they are brainwashing innocent children ...

.

Ha ha. Google again. You got all that atheist stuff stuck in your head.

I just gave you the experimental evidence and Mt. St. Helens to explain the geographic layers. It is based on location and not time as the layers do not take millions of years to form. Again, atheist scientists are wrong.

In case you missed it, I say he who laughs last, laughs best in the battle between atheists and creationists. I think that is one of the lessons of Aesop's Fables, "He laughs best that laughs last."

If I win, you'll be hearing this as JB's last laugh. I loved those Batman movies of Christopher Nolan.

.

Ha ha. Google again.

there are no taxpayer funded institutions teaching creationist ideology as science ...

I say he who laughs last, laughs best ... I think that is one of the lessons of Aesop's Fables,

if so they plagiarized Confucius ... similar to your leap from reality.


haha

.

No plagiarism. I gave credit to Aesop. Again, you are wrong. Lol.

.

No plagiarism. I gave credit to Aesop. Again, you are wrong. Lol.

it's not from Aesop and certainly is not a fable, christian ... "He who laughs last laughs longest" is Confucius.

we're still waiting for your taxpayer funded institution that teaches creation theology as science ...



considering your reliance as proof for an immediate universe there must be at least one you can produce as a qualified source ....

.

 

[BreezeWood]

The notion that evolution is a scientific theory while creation is nothing more than religious mysticism is blatantly false, and I think I have more than adequately shown that. Any rational person would be able to pull out your basic arguments and extract out my basic arguments and compare them side-by-side.

and I think I have more than adequately shown that ...


only on a discussion forum where delusion deviates from reality - in your own mind.

I've presented evidence that creation scientists have been shut out of the scientific establishment by not accepting any of the arguments of creation scientists.

the failure is not in the scientific establishment composed to include religious consideration but of the evidence or lack of the creationist are unable to provide.

Mutation is generally negative or neutral. It does not produce positive traits for a faster, stronger, and better species.This has been documented in scientific tests, observations, and experiments.

there are no links for your assertion but from unqualified creationist websites.

I've pointed out and argued about beauty and complexity cannot come from evolution, but from creation or an intelligent designer. I've presented that parsimony shows that the creation side rules all.

pure mental delusion ...

All of the denial of the above is what I would call being brainwashed, forkup. I've also pointed out that we all will find out in the end which one of us is right and spoke the truth.

there is no doubt who has spoken for the truth rather than delusion irregardless the outcome.

Beyond that, actual death, is not known and cannot possibly be known. That is what God said in the Bible even before we got to that stage with neurology and the medical sciences.

what the Almighty said Bond was to know the truth before your body expires, you needn't expect the chance afterwards ....

If you and evolutionists are right, all that evolution and billions of years ends up with a relatively short life and people saying, "Is that all there is?" No judgment. No consequences. Just loss of consciousness and death. Ha ha.

evolution is the consequence over time in a progression of change that does lead to Judgement with renewal and is a pathway to the Everlasting it is a part of. it is life without death.

.

 

[james bond]

I have chronology, but it's not based on radiometric dating. RD was invented by Clair Patterson. I got that from an evolution website. What the creation scientists and other scientists who do not believe in evolution is criticize the method and not knowing how much radioactive material there was in the beginning. If some living thing, plant or animal, died, then we can tell how long they lived. I think we can agree on this. However, we cannot tell when they started living. We can date inanimate things with it, too, as I understand it. With radiocarbon dating, one can date something, assuming it is less than 100,000 years old, and under certain conditions. One of the things that made me question the dating is because every news or article I read on old earth that has to do with evolution has to tell me how old the earth is, how old a type of fossil is or how old the dinosaur or whatever they are talking about is. If these things are facts, then I do not need to be told in every article. Yet, it continued to be done over and over until I started questioning just why they keep repeating themselves. No one repeats the earth is round or the sun is 93 millions of miles (150 millions of km) away each time we discuss it. They only do it in the evolution news and articles. So, what living thing has lived more than 6,000 years old? I already mentioned the trees found high in the mountains, the diamonds found in the coal layer, dinosaur fossils with living tissue still there, etc..

As for the layers, you are not stating fact, but what the evolutionists' claims. They claim that the fossil record shows evolution is true just like you stated. The layers are there because that is where the plants, animals or humans were when they were buried, and is not based on chronology, but location. The chronological age that they claim is based on the assumptions of an old earth and the theory of evolution. It's really a circular argument. These layers prove evolution and its timeline. In evolution, we assume an old earth, and thus, these layers are billions of years old. So, I have shown you did not consider my previous argument of location and not time. How do you know how old these rocks are? By radiometric dating, and I've already showed you how inaccurate it can be and it does not tell us what you assume of a starting point.

So your first paragraph is a deflection and your second paragraph is an evasion, since you didn't give ANY source just the old argument you're wrong. If the chronoligy is not true give me examples remember. I will not let go of this subject nore will I continue adressing your post until you can offer more then that. It's not a circular argument since I'm not talking about dating. I'm talking about the order fossils appear physicaly. I know that's an ankward fact to you but there it is

First, I think I know more than you about evolution. All of that which you stated for chronological layers are not facts. They're claims by secular scientists due to their beliefs that the earth is old and radiometric dating, discovered by little known Clair Patterson, who gave it to them in 1956 for the age of the earth. The arguments we are having are nothing new, but go back to 1795 and the 1800s. I have been giving you examples all this time, such as the where the names come from for the different layers, catastrophism (which is being usurped by the secular scientists now) vs uniformitarianism, the formation of the Cliffs of Dover, the Australian land formation, ocean floor sediment, coelacanth and dinosaurs, the moon, moon rocks, and so on, and yet you do not see. The last couple of posts, I gave you experimental evidence. That is the ultimate. I gave you Mt. St. Helens which demonstrates the sedimentary layers. Go read and watch those videos. Where is the evolutionists experimental evidence for chronological layers? There is none. You need to have an open mind. It's stuck in the chronology mud of the evolutionists.

This isn't about who won the debate, which I have clearly won, but to compare the evidence of the two sides and judge for yourself. Maybe I went a little further than most by reading some of the Bible. I used to think like you until the early 2000s. but evolution did not answer the questions people had and I had. It was around 2011 that the evo stuff really hit the fan in the media. Actually, the battle started up again in 1925 with the Scopes trial, books by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in the 60s, and more legal trials of creation vs evolution in 1980-90. When comparing the two scientific evidence, it was nolo contendere for creation. The battle for our young peoples minds will continue. It really isn't about religion, but science.

I asked one simple thing, no deflections, no evasions, no avoiding the subject. If the cronology is wrong give me examples.... Now you are avoiding, deflecting, evading and blustering. List of fossil sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is a list of known fossil sites. Like I said you can leave the dating alone, altough not every site here is dated using radiometric dating. You have a hypothesis, namely all KINDS lived togheter, so it's logical that all KINDS will be found togheter. Proof it.

Ha ha. I already gave them to you several times. The fossil record can be used to argue for both sides. However, is the record correct if stratification happens from top-down and not bottom-up? I think you do not have the perspicacity to let go of your presuppositions about evolution and then compare the two arguments side-by-side. The notion that evolution is a scientific theory while creation is nothing more than religious mysticism is blatantly false, and I think I have more than adequately shown that. Any rational person would be able to pull out your basic arguments and extract out my basic arguments and compare them side-by-side.

This, in lieu of, not knowing about the Bible. While the Bible is an important document that supplements creation science, the intent is to extract the truth and not present something used to convert someone whether they be atheist or another religion. Secular scientists have their own "truth" theories based on their own scientists and celebrities such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and so on. With the Bible, the creationists have God on their side. My intention was not to present a religious argument, but a scientific one and I think I've did that.

In the end, I presented an experimental and testable, as well as a natural one as evidence. I also presented testable evidence with the atomic clocks and spacetime. I presented testable evidence of electromagnetic propulsion to be used in traveling at the speed of light. I gave evidence for the distance between the earth and the moon and how one can tell how old the earth is. I showed that one cannot measure with any accuracy the distance to the nearest sun (star) in another galaxy. I agreed that one can map the positions of stars, moon, and other planets by knowing the date. I presented documented evidence that the layers of the earth are based on location and not time.

I presented a logical argument for the existence of a Creator or God with the Kalam Cosmological Argument and other logic arguments. I presented historical truths about the hidden cultural artifacts showing dinosaurs were called dragons before the word "dinosaur" was coined. I presented the testability of natural selection and genetics which are part of both creation and evolution sciences. Evolutionists try to claim it as their own and mislead people into thinking that is what evolution is. I've presented evidence that creation scientists have been shut out of the scientific establishment by not accepting any of the arguments of creation scientists. I've pointed out that this is getting only one side of the story. I gave evidence that evolution is driven by money or grants given to those scientists that find evidence for evolution, no matter how misplaced it could be. I've pointed out that the media tries to use evolutionary ideas in their articles by pointing out the chronology of evolution every chance they get. I've pointed out that all of this ToE is wrong. If it was true, then everyone would not have to be told of an old earth over and over. They would just know it as fact.

In addition to this, I've pointed out the fallacies in the evolutionists arguments with their radiometric dating, ideas that things like a macro-change in species could happen by chance in nature given enough time. We didn't get into that, but that is called mutation. Mutation is generally negative or neutral. It does not produce positive traits for a faster, stronger, and better species. This has been documented in scientific tests, observations, and experiments.

I've shown that atheist scientists like Carl Sagan was wrong with their theories on stuff of like (see Miller-Uray experiment). I've stated that evolutionists cannot and have not created any forms of life -- even the basic building block of a protein molecule (can only be created "within" a cell. I've pointed out and argued about beauty and complexity cannot come from evolution, but from creation or an intelligent designer. I've presented that parsimony shows that the creation side rules all.

All of the denial of the above is what I would call being brainwashed, forkup. I've also pointed out that we all will find out in the end which one of us is right and spoke the truth. I mentioned the existence of consciousness at the near-death stage and what happens. Beyond that, actual death, is not known and cannot possibly be known. That is what God said in the Bible even before we got to that stage with neurology and the medical sciences. Again, he who laughs last, laughs best, Mr. Forkup. I will be laughing loud and hearty when your time is up. If I am right, then you will clearly hear. If you and evolutionists are right, all that evolution and billions of years ends up with a relatively short life and people saying, "Is that all there is?" No judgment. No consequences. Just loss of consciousness and death. Ha ha.

You have shown exactly zero testable theories. You have shown myth, filosofy, theoligy, hell you even try to site the Loch Ness monster as proof. The only fault you have shown with radiometric dating is that it comes out with dates you don't agree with. You haven't adressed genetic similarities, PROVEN, TESTABLE simularities, you haven't explained cosmic distances and how we see light from far of places, exept saying somehow science forgot to take spacetime into account. You somehow try to admit survival of the fittest, but don't accept it's logical conclusion. You can't explain away the simple physical impossibility of 8 ppl building and manning the biggest wooden boat ever conceived, stocking it with enough food and fresh water to take care of what conservativly using creationist estimates 10000 plus animals for a full year. The fact that science makes mistakes is the strenght of science we are not married to our ideas. You say Creationism is scientific and yet you offer nothing of proof. In the course of this discussion I have done extensive research on the diiferent claims made in creatonism. I found that even amongst yourselfs you guys can't even agree on what you guys disagree on. this guy for instance knows stratafication of species happens and then gives a completly bizar explanation Like even in this post. Top bottom, bottem up, dated, sideways it matters not a single thing, the fact of the matter is something you still haven't shown any proof of. Unless you can come up with a way why stratafication would happen in the same order, excluding the same types of species all across the earth you lose. I have seen 3 different sets of semi-scientific flood events, all thouroghly debunked. I have shown you a creationist geoligist trying to create whirlpools that suck dinosaurs to the bottom. On and ON but you feel like you won? Guess it has to be nice to live in a world where facts take a backseat to your own beliefs but I don't roll that way. Like I said I have asked now at least 6 times of you to come up with proof to something wich is a long standing pro evolution argument. An argument wich is easily testable. And since you always refer to secular scientist. This had to have been tested by your Creasionist scientist. You have come up with nothing. That is a fact. And believe me I let you of easy since I didn't make you argue dating.

Ha ha. Are you looking in the mirror and talking about yourself? You have shown no experiments to test what you claim. Radiometric dating comes out with dates many do not agree with. Only the secular scientists who agree with each other. If it does not fall within their preconceived time ranges of ToE, then it is considered to be in error. The whole dating of moon rocks should be tossed out, but only the ones which measured billions of years were kept. How do you explain when they date something which they know such as rocks from a volcanic eruption that just occurred, it gives times of milions of years?. You probably do not know why they only radiometric test certain items. Please explain radiometric dating and which dates are valid and why this is so. I'm still waiting for your dating of one moon rock.

I gave you Piltdown Man as the fakery that the evolutionists tried to pull. It mislead a generation. Then you gave me Lucy whose one knee was found about 1.5 miles away and much deeper in the ground that the rest of Lucy. It's not part of Lucy. More fakery. You had to STFU as you had no reply to it. I'm still waiting for your explanation of lightyears to the nearest star using astronomy when you did not take into account spacetime. And I didn't mention the Loch Ness monster, but our own Champ. I provided the links to all of the these. You provided only a few links and they weren't convincing. I've got thousands of eyewitnesses to Champ while your side has no one who has seen any evolution actually occur. Birds did not descend from dinosaurs. What happened to the Archaeopteryx? Where is the evidence to show birds descended from dinosaurs when OSU has shown that the lungs and skeletal structure of birds are different from dinosaurs. That makes it an impossible descent. Even your apes to man infograph has no testable proof. How can you be so naive and stubborn?

Facts do not take a backseat. You do not even know what the facts are. You are a huge joke. You are simply hilarious. Both sides have the same facts. It's the interpretation of these facts is what's different. Any intelligent person knows this. You can't even get past first base trying to show how knowledgeable you are on evolution. Lol.

I'm sick of explaining over and over to a simpleton. So one last time, here is more proof of creation in addition to what I have already summarized. It proves to all these people here that you did not read the links I provided. Science backs up the Bible even though it is not a science book. How many times did I say to you lol? It just goes in one ear and out the other because of your preconceived ideas.

The Bible is the world's best selling book of all time at five billion copies. How stupid are those atheists who do not know this and have not read the Bible. We've seen those snide comments in this thread, haven't we? Atheists are usually wrong. Ha ha.

Cosmology/Astronomy
Time had a beginning. The universe had a beginning. Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe. Haven't you heard, "All that is and all that there will be." The steady state theory of atheist science was shown to be pseudoscience. The universe was created from the invisible or supernatural. The dimensions of the universe were created. The universe is expanding, but creation scientists theorize it has an edge, i.e. there are limits to it and it does not forever keep expanding. The universe is winding down and will "wear out." The second law of thermodynamics ensures that the universe will run down due to "heat death" or maximum entropy. Genesis provides the correct order of creation. The numbers of stars exceed a billion. Stated from ancient times when one can only count 3000 stars. Every star is different. Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups. Light is in motion. The Earth is controlled by the heavens. Earth is a sphere. There goes some atheist claims that creationists think the earth is flat lol. At any time, there is day and night on Earth. Earth is suspended in space. The physical laws are constant.

Earth Sciences
Earth began as a waterworld. Formation of continents by tectonic activity described from Pangaea to today. The water cycle is described. Valleys exist at the bottom of the sea. Vents exist at the bottom of the sea. It describes the ocean currents in the sea. Air has weight. Winds blow in circular paths.

Biology
The chemical nature of human life. Life of creatures in in the blood. The nature of infectious diseases. Importance of sanitation to health.

Science in the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?

All of the above has been discovered by science and it backs up what the Bible stated from the 2nd to the 4th century.

All of the above stated way before evolution. What science has backed up the ToE? When did the ToE start?

So, you can add this to all of the summations I made to you in my three or four summary posts. Where is your ToE summary? All you did was foolishly ask six times for the evidence when it was given to you had you clicked and read the link.

Now where is the proof for evolution? You probably can't explain evolution. How many copies did Darwin's book sell? What is the complete title of his book? I doubt you know any of this. Ha ha.

Is your handle forkup because you continue to forkup.

 

[BreezeWood]

So your first paragraph is a deflection and your second paragraph is an evasion, since you didn't give ANY source just the old argument you're wrong. If the chronoligy is not true give me examples remember. I will not let go of this subject nore will I continue adressing your post until you can offer more then that. It's not a circular argument since I'm not talking about dating. I'm talking about the order fossils appear physicaly. I know that's an ankward fact to you but there it is

First, I think I know more than you about evolution. All of that which you stated for chronological layers are not facts. They're claims by secular scientists due to their beliefs that the earth is old and radiometric dating, discovered by little known Clair Patterson, who gave it to them in 1956 for the age of the earth. The arguments we are having are nothing new, but go back to 1795 and the 1800s. I have been giving you examples all this time, such as the where the names come from for the different layers, catastrophism (which is being usurped by the secular scientists now) vs uniformitarianism, the formation of the Cliffs of Dover, the Australian land formation, ocean floor sediment, coelacanth and dinosaurs, the moon, moon rocks, and so on, and yet you do not see. The last couple of posts, I gave you experimental evidence. That is the ultimate. I gave you Mt. St. Helens which demonstrates the sedimentary layers. Go read and watch those videos. Where is the evolutionists experimental evidence for chronological layers? There is none. You need to have an open mind. It's stuck in the chronology mud of the evolutionists.

This isn't about who won the debate, which I have clearly won, but to compare the evidence of the two sides and judge for yourself. Maybe I went a little further than most by reading some of the Bible. I used to think like you until the early 2000s. but evolution did not answer the questions people had and I had. It was around 2011 that the evo stuff really hit the fan in the media. Actually, the battle started up again in 1925 with the Scopes trial, books by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in the 60s, and more legal trials of creation vs evolution in 1980-90. When comparing the two scientific evidence, it was nolo contendere for creation. The battle for our young peoples minds will continue. It really isn't about religion, but science.

I asked one simple thing, no deflections, no evasions, no avoiding the subject. If the cronology is wrong give me examples.... Now you are avoiding, deflecting, evading and blustering. List of fossil sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is a list of known fossil sites. Like I said you can leave the dating alone, altough not every site here is dated using radiometric dating. You have a hypothesis, namely all KINDS lived togheter, so it's logical that all KINDS will be found togheter. Proof it.

Ha ha. I already gave them to you several times. The fossil record can be used to argue for both sides. However, is the record correct if stratification happens from top-down and not bottom-up? I think you do not have the perspicacity to let go of your presuppositions about evolution and then compare the two arguments side-by-side. The notion that evolution is a scientific theory while creation is nothing more than religious mysticism is blatantly false, and I think I have more than adequately shown that. Any rational person would be able to pull out your basic arguments and extract out my basic arguments and compare them side-by-side.

This, in lieu of, not knowing about the Bible. While the Bible is an important document that supplements creation science, the intent is to extract the truth and not present something used to convert someone whether they be atheist or another religion. Secular scientists have their own "truth" theories based on their own scientists and celebrities such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and so on. With the Bible, the creationists have God on their side. My intention was not to present a religious argument, but a scientific one and I think I've did that.

In the end, I presented an experimental and testable, as well as a natural one as evidence. I also presented testable evidence with the atomic clocks and spacetime. I presented testable evidence of electromagnetic propulsion to be used in traveling at the speed of light. I gave evidence for the distance between the earth and the moon and how one can tell how old the earth is. I showed that one cannot measure with any accuracy the distance to the nearest sun (star) in another galaxy. I agreed that one can map the positions of stars, moon, and other planets by knowing the date. I presented documented evidence that the layers of the earth are based on location and not time.

I presented a logical argument for the existence of a Creator or God with the Kalam Cosmological Argument and other logic arguments. I presented historical truths about the hidden cultural artifacts showing dinosaurs were called dragons before the word "dinosaur" was coined. I presented the testability of natural selection and genetics which are part of both creation and evolution sciences. Evolutionists try to claim it as their own and mislead people into thinking that is what evolution is. I've presented evidence that creation scientists have been shut out of the scientific establishment by not accepting any of the arguments of creation scientists. I've pointed out that this is getting only one side of the story. I gave evidence that evolution is driven by money or grants given to those scientists that find evidence for evolution, no matter how misplaced it could be. I've pointed out that the media tries to use evolutionary ideas in their articles by pointing out the chronology of evolution every chance they get. I've pointed out that all of this ToE is wrong. If it was true, then everyone would not have to be told of an old earth over and over. They would just know it as fact.

In addition to this, I've pointed out the fallacies in the evolutionists arguments with their radiometric dating, ideas that things like a macro-change in species could happen by chance in nature given enough time. We didn't get into that, but that is called mutation. Mutation is generally negative or neutral. It does not produce positive traits for a faster, stronger, and better species. This has been documented in scientific tests, observations, and experiments.

I've shown that atheist scientists like Carl Sagan was wrong with their theories on stuff of like (see Miller-Uray experiment). I've stated that evolutionists cannot and have not created any forms of life -- even the basic building block of a protein molecule (can only be created "within" a cell. I've pointed out and argued about beauty and complexity cannot come from evolution, but from creation or an intelligent designer. I've presented that parsimony shows that the creation side rules all.

All of the denial of the above is what I would call being brainwashed, forkup. I've also pointed out that we all will find out in the end which one of us is right and spoke the truth. I mentioned the existence of consciousness at the near-death stage and what happens. Beyond that, actual death, is not known and cannot possibly be known. That is what God said in the Bible even before we got to that stage with neurology and the medical sciences. Again, he who laughs last, laughs best, Mr. Forkup. I will be laughing loud and hearty when your time is up. If I am right, then you will clearly hear. If you and evolutionists are right, all that evolution and billions of years ends up with a relatively short life and people saying, "Is that all there is?" No judgment. No consequences. Just loss of consciousness and death. Ha ha.

You have shown exactly zero testable theories. You have shown myth, filosofy, theoligy, hell you even try to site the Loch Ness monster as proof. The only fault you have shown with radiometric dating is that it comes out with dates you don't agree with. You haven't adressed genetic similarities, PROVEN, TESTABLE simularities, you haven't explained cosmic distances and how we see light from far of places, exept saying somehow science forgot to take spacetime into account. You somehow try to admit survival of the fittest, but don't accept it's logical conclusion. You can't explain away the simple physical impossibility of 8 ppl building and manning the biggest wooden boat ever conceived, stocking it with enough food and fresh water to take care of what conservativly using creationist estimates 10000 plus animals for a full year. The fact that science makes mistakes is the strenght of science we are not married to our ideas. You say Creationism is scientific and yet you offer nothing of proof. In the course of this discussion I have done extensive research on the diiferent claims made in creatonism. I found that even amongst yourselfs you guys can't even agree on what you guys disagree on. this guy for instance knows stratafication of species happens and then gives a completly bizar explanation Like even in this post. Top bottom, bottem up, dated, sideways it matters not a single thing, the fact of the matter is something you still haven't shown any proof of. Unless you can come up with a way why stratafication would happen in the same order, excluding the same types of species all across the earth you lose. I have seen 3 different sets of semi-scientific flood events, all thouroghly debunked. I have shown you a creationist geoligist trying to create whirlpools that suck dinosaurs to the bottom. On and ON but you feel like you won? Guess it has to be nice to live in a world where facts take a backseat to your own beliefs but I don't roll that way. Like I said I have asked now at least 6 times of you to come up with proof to something wich is a long standing pro evolution argument. An argument wich is easily testable. And since you always refer to secular scientist. This had to have been tested by your Creasionist scientist. You have come up with nothing. That is a fact. And believe me I let you of easy since I didn't make you argue dating.

Ha ha. Are you looking in the mirror and talking about yourself? You have shown no experiments to test what you claim. Radiometric dating comes out with dates many do not agree with. Only the secular scientists who agree with each other. If it does not fall within their preconceived time ranges of ToE, then it is considered to be in error. The whole dating of moon rocks should be tossed out, but only the ones which measured billions of years were kept. How do you explain when they date something which they know such as rocks from a volcanic eruption that just occurred, it gives times of milions of years?. You probably do not know why they only radiometric test certain items. Please explain radiometric dating and which dates are valid and why this is so. I'm still waiting for your dating of one moon rock.

I gave you Piltdown Man as the fakery that the evolutionists tried to pull. It mislead a generation. Then you gave me Lucy whose one knee was found about 1.5 miles away and much deeper in the ground that the rest of Lucy. It's not part of Lucy. More fakery. You had to STFU as you had no reply to it. I'm still waiting for your explanation of lightyears to the nearest star using astronomy when you did not take into account spacetime. And I didn't mention the Loch Ness monster, but our own Champ. I provided the links to all of the these. You provided only a few links and they weren't convincing. I've got thousands of eyewitnesses to Champ while your side has no one who has seen any evolution actually occur. Birds did not descend from dinosaurs. What happened to the Archaeopteryx? Where is the evidence to show birds descended from dinosaurs when OSU has shown that the lungs and skeletal structure of birds are different from dinosaurs. That makes it an impossible descent. Even your apes to man infograph has no testable proof. How can you be so naive and stubborn?

Facts do not take a backseat. You do not even know what the facts are. You are a huge joke. You are simply hilarious. Both sides have the same facts. It's the interpretation of these facts is what's different. Any intelligent person knows this. You can't even get past first base trying to show how knowledgeable you are on evolution. Lol.

I'm sick of explaining over and over to a simpleton. So one last time, here is more proof of creation in addition to what I have already summarized. It proves to all these people here that you did not read the links I provided. Science backs up the Bible even though it is not a science book. How many times did I say to you lol? It just goes in one ear and out the other because of your preconceived ideas.

The Bible is the world's best selling book of all time at five billion copies. How stupid are those atheists who do not know this and have not read the Bible. We've seen those snide comments in this thread, haven't we? Atheists are usually wrong. Ha ha.

Cosmology/Astronomy
Time had a beginning. The universe had a beginning. Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe. Haven't you heard, "All that is and all that there will be." The steady state theory of atheist science was shown to be pseudoscience. The universe was created from the invisible or supernatural. The dimensions of the universe were created. The universe is expanding, but creation scientists theorize it has an edge, i.e. there are limits to it and it does not forever keep expanding. The universe is winding down and will "wear out." The second law of thermodynamics ensures that the universe will run down due to "heat death" or maximum entropy. Genesis provides the correct order of creation. The numbers of stars exceed a billion. Stated from ancient times when one can only count 3000 stars. Every star is different. Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups. Light is in motion. The Earth is controlled by the heavens. Earth is a sphere. There goes some atheist claims that creationists think the earth is flat lol. At any time, there is day and night on Earth. Earth is suspended in space. The physical laws are constant.

Earth Sciences
Earth began as a waterworld. Formation of continents by tectonic activity described from Pangaea to today. The water cycle is described. Valleys exist at the bottom of the sea. Vents exist at the bottom of the sea. It describes the ocean currents in the sea. Air has weight. Winds blow in circular paths.

Biology
The chemical nature of human life. Life of creatures in in the blood. The nature of infectious diseases. Importance of sanitation to health.

Science in the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?

All of the above has been discovered by science and it backs up what the Bible stated from the 2nd to the 4th century.

All of the above stated way before evolution. What science has backed up the ToE? When did the ToE start?

So, you can add this to all of the summations I made to you in my three or four summary posts. Where is your ToE summary? All you did was foolishly ask six times for the evidence when it was given to you had you clicked and read the link.

Now where is the proof for evolution? You probably can't explain evolution. How many copies did Darwin's book sell? What is the complete title of his book? I doubt you know any of this. Ha ha.

Is your handle forkup because you continue to forkup.

.

Only the secular scientists who agree with each other.

Ha ha. Are you looking in the mirror and talking about yourself?

Are you looking in the mirror ...

the only people in disagreement without verification are yourself and the creationist ... one can only guess what you see when you look.

All of the above has been discovered by science and it backs up what the Bible stated from the 2nd to the 4th century.

it didn't exist in the first and no, the Atmosphere on Earth is not the same as throughout the universe.

.

 

[forkup]

So your first paragraph is a deflection and your second paragraph is an evasion, since you didn't give ANY source just the old argument you're wrong. If the chronoligy is not true give me examples remember. I will not let go of this subject nore will I continue adressing your post until you can offer more then that. It's not a circular argument since I'm not talking about dating. I'm talking about the order fossils appear physicaly. I know that's an ankward fact to you but there it is

First, I think I know more than you about evolution. All of that which you stated for chronological layers are not facts. They're claims by secular scientists due to their beliefs that the earth is old and radiometric dating, discovered by little known Clair Patterson, who gave it to them in 1956 for the age of the earth. The arguments we are having are nothing new, but go back to 1795 and the 1800s. I have been giving you examples all this time, such as the where the names come from for the different layers, catastrophism (which is being usurped by the secular scientists now) vs uniformitarianism, the formation of the Cliffs of Dover, the Australian land formation, ocean floor sediment, coelacanth and dinosaurs, the moon, moon rocks, and so on, and yet you do not see. The last couple of posts, I gave you experimental evidence. That is the ultimate. I gave you Mt. St. Helens which demonstrates the sedimentary layers. Go read and watch those videos. Where is the evolutionists experimental evidence for chronological layers? There is none. You need to have an open mind. It's stuck in the chronology mud of the evolutionists.

This isn't about who won the debate, which I have clearly won, but to compare the evidence of the two sides and judge for yourself. Maybe I went a little further than most by reading some of the Bible. I used to think like you until the early 2000s. but evolution did not answer the questions people had and I had. It was around 2011 that the evo stuff really hit the fan in the media. Actually, the battle started up again in 1925 with the Scopes trial, books by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in the 60s, and more legal trials of creation vs evolution in 1980-90. When comparing the two scientific evidence, it was nolo contendere for creation. The battle for our young peoples minds will continue. It really isn't about religion, but science.

I asked one simple thing, no deflections, no evasions, no avoiding the subject. If the cronology is wrong give me examples.... Now you are avoiding, deflecting, evading and blustering. List of fossil sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is a list of known fossil sites. Like I said you can leave the dating alone, altough not every site here is dated using radiometric dating. You have a hypothesis, namely all KINDS lived togheter, so it's logical that all KINDS will be found togheter. Proof it.

Ha ha. I already gave them to you several times. The fossil record can be used to argue for both sides. However, is the record correct if stratification happens from top-down and not bottom-up? I think you do not have the perspicacity to let go of your presuppositions about evolution and then compare the two arguments side-by-side. The notion that evolution is a scientific theory while creation is nothing more than religious mysticism is blatantly false, and I think I have more than adequately shown that. Any rational person would be able to pull out your basic arguments and extract out my basic arguments and compare them side-by-side.

This, in lieu of, not knowing about the Bible. While the Bible is an important document that supplements creation science, the intent is to extract the truth and not present something used to convert someone whether they be atheist or another religion. Secular scientists have their own "truth" theories based on their own scientists and celebrities such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and so on. With the Bible, the creationists have God on their side. My intention was not to present a religious argument, but a scientific one and I think I've did that.

In the end, I presented an experimental and testable, as well as a natural one as evidence. I also presented testable evidence with the atomic clocks and spacetime. I presented testable evidence of electromagnetic propulsion to be used in traveling at the speed of light. I gave evidence for the distance between the earth and the moon and how one can tell how old the earth is. I showed that one cannot measure with any accuracy the distance to the nearest sun (star) in another galaxy. I agreed that one can map the positions of stars, moon, and other planets by knowing the date. I presented documented evidence that the layers of the earth are based on location and not time.

I presented a logical argument for the existence of a Creator or God with the Kalam Cosmological Argument and other logic arguments. I presented historical truths about the hidden cultural artifacts showing dinosaurs were called dragons before the word "dinosaur" was coined. I presented the testability of natural selection and genetics which are part of both creation and evolution sciences. Evolutionists try to claim it as their own and mislead people into thinking that is what evolution is. I've presented evidence that creation scientists have been shut out of the scientific establishment by not accepting any of the arguments of creation scientists. I've pointed out that this is getting only one side of the story. I gave evidence that evolution is driven by money or grants given to those scientists that find evidence for evolution, no matter how misplaced it could be. I've pointed out that the media tries to use evolutionary ideas in their articles by pointing out the chronology of evolution every chance they get. I've pointed out that all of this ToE is wrong. If it was true, then everyone would not have to be told of an old earth over and over. They would just know it as fact.

In addition to this, I've pointed out the fallacies in the evolutionists arguments with their radiometric dating, ideas that things like a macro-change in species could happen by chance in nature given enough time. We didn't get into that, but that is called mutation. Mutation is generally negative or neutral. It does not produce positive traits for a faster, stronger, and better species. This has been documented in scientific tests, observations, and experiments.

I've shown that atheist scientists like Carl Sagan was wrong with their theories on stuff of like (see Miller-Uray experiment). I've stated that evolutionists cannot and have not created any forms of life -- even the basic building block of a protein molecule (can only be created "within" a cell. I've pointed out and argued about beauty and complexity cannot come from evolution, but from creation or an intelligent designer. I've presented that parsimony shows that the creation side rules all.

All of the denial of the above is what I would call being brainwashed, forkup. I've also pointed out that we all will find out in the end which one of us is right and spoke the truth. I mentioned the existence of consciousness at the near-death stage and what happens. Beyond that, actual death, is not known and cannot possibly be known. That is what God said in the Bible even before we got to that stage with neurology and the medical sciences. Again, he who laughs last, laughs best, Mr. Forkup. I will be laughing loud and hearty when your time is up. If I am right, then you will clearly hear. If you and evolutionists are right, all that evolution and billions of years ends up with a relatively short life and people saying, "Is that all there is?" No judgment. No consequences. Just loss of consciousness and death. Ha ha.

You have shown exactly zero testable theories. You have shown myth, filosofy, theoligy, hell you even try to site the Loch Ness monster as proof. The only fault you have shown with radiometric dating is that it comes out with dates you don't agree with. You haven't adressed genetic similarities, PROVEN, TESTABLE simularities, you haven't explained cosmic distances and how we see light from far of places, exept saying somehow science forgot to take spacetime into account. You somehow try to admit survival of the fittest, but don't accept it's logical conclusion. You can't explain away the simple physical impossibility of 8 ppl building and manning the biggest wooden boat ever conceived, stocking it with enough food and fresh water to take care of what conservativly using creationist estimates 10000 plus animals for a full year. The fact that science makes mistakes is the strenght of science we are not married to our ideas. You say Creationism is scientific and yet you offer nothing of proof. In the course of this discussion I have done extensive research on the diiferent claims made in creatonism. I found that even amongst yourselfs you guys can't even agree on what you guys disagree on. this guy for instance knows stratafication of species happens and then gives a completly bizar explanation Like even in this post. Top bottom, bottem up, dated, sideways it matters not a single thing, the fact of the matter is something you still haven't shown any proof of. Unless you can come up with a way why stratafication would happen in the same order, excluding the same types of species all across the earth you lose. I have seen 3 different sets of semi-scientific flood events, all thouroghly debunked. I have shown you a creationist geoligist trying to create whirlpools that suck dinosaurs to the bottom. On and ON but you feel like you won? Guess it has to be nice to live in a world where facts take a backseat to your own beliefs but I don't roll that way. Like I said I have asked now at least 6 times of you to come up with proof to something wich is a long standing pro evolution argument. An argument wich is easily testable. And since you always refer to secular scientist. This had to have been tested by your Creasionist scientist. You have come up with nothing. That is a fact. And believe me I let you of easy since I didn't make you argue dating.

Ha ha. Are you looking in the mirror and talking about yourself? You have shown no experiments to test what you claim. Radiometric dating comes out with dates many do not agree with. Only the secular scientists who agree with each other. If it does not fall within their preconceived time ranges of ToE, then it is considered to be in error. The whole dating of moon rocks should be tossed out, but only the ones which measured billions of years were kept. How do you explain when they date something which they know such as rocks from a volcanic eruption that just occurred, it gives times of milions of years?. You probably do not know why they only radiometric test certain items. Please explain radiometric dating and which dates are valid and why this is so. I'm still waiting for your dating of one moon rock.

I gave you Piltdown Man as the fakery that the evolutionists tried to pull. It mislead a generation. Then you gave me Lucy whose one knee was found about 1.5 miles away and much deeper in the ground that the rest of Lucy. It's not part of Lucy. More fakery. You had to STFU as you had no reply to it. I'm still waiting for your explanation of lightyears to the nearest star using astronomy when you did not take into account spacetime. And I didn't mention the Loch Ness monster, but our own Champ. I provided the links to all of the these. You provided only a few links and they weren't convincing. I've got thousands of eyewitnesses to Champ while your side has no one who has seen any evolution actually occur. Birds did not descend from dinosaurs. What happened to the Archaeopteryx? Where is the evidence to show birds descended from dinosaurs when OSU has shown that the lungs and skeletal structure of birds are different from dinosaurs. That makes it an impossible descent. Even your apes to man infograph has no testable proof. How can you be so naive and stubborn?

Facts do not take a backseat. You do not even know what the facts are. You are a huge joke. You are simply hilarious. Both sides have the same facts. It's the interpretation of these facts is what's different. Any intelligent person knows this. You can't even get past first base trying to show how knowledgeable you are on evolution. Lol.

I'm sick of explaining over and over to a simpleton. So one last time, here is more proof of creation in addition to what I have already summarized. It proves to all these people here that you did not read the links I provided. Science backs up the Bible even though it is not a science book. How many times did I say to you lol? It just goes in one ear and out the other because of your preconceived ideas.

The Bible is the world's best selling book of all time at five billion copies. How stupid are those atheists who do not know this and have not read the Bible. We've seen those snide comments in this thread, haven't we? Atheists are usually wrong. Ha ha.

Cosmology/Astronomy
Time had a beginning. The universe had a beginning. Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe. Haven't you heard, "All that is and all that there will be." The steady state theory of atheist science was shown to be pseudoscience. The universe was created from the invisible or supernatural. The dimensions of the universe were created. The universe is expanding, but creation scientists theorize it has an edge, i.e. there are limits to it and it does not forever keep expanding. The universe is winding down and will "wear out." The second law of thermodynamics ensures that the universe will run down due to "heat death" or maximum entropy. Genesis provides the correct order of creation. The numbers of stars exceed a billion. Stated from ancient times when one can only count 3000 stars. Every star is different. Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups. Light is in motion. The Earth is controlled by the heavens. Earth is a sphere. There goes some atheist claims that creationists think the earth is flat lol. At any time, there is day and night on Earth. Earth is suspended in space. The physical laws are constant.

Earth Sciences
Earth began as a waterworld. Formation of continents by tectonic activity described from Pangaea to today. The water cycle is described. Valleys exist at the bottom of the sea. Vents exist at the bottom of the sea. It describes the ocean currents in the sea. Air has weight. Winds blow in circular paths.

Biology
The chemical nature of human life. Life of creatures in in the blood. The nature of infectious diseases. Importance of sanitation to health.

Science in the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?

All of the above has been discovered by science and it backs up what the Bible stated from the 2nd to the 4th century.

All of the above stated way before evolution. What science has backed up the ToE? When did the ToE start?

So, you can add this to all of the summations I made to you in my three or four summary posts. Where is your ToE summary? All you did was foolishly ask six times for the evidence when it was given to you had you clicked and read the link.

Now where is the proof for evolution? You probably can't explain evolution. How many copies did Darwin's book sell? What is the complete title of his book? I doubt you know any of this. Ha ha.

Is your handle forkup because you continue to forkup.

'You have shown no experiments to test what you claim.' Really?
-Test 1. Moses lived to 800 years old. Average human lifespan is around 80 now. 800 years old is not just unlikely but impossible. Excuse: Humans lived longer in acient times.Rebuttal: Show me any ancient human corps that reached that age. Counter rebuttal: science can't see living age, answer: Yes it can, they can use tooth email. excuse: yes but not enough ancient tooth have been found. my reply: posted a number of grave sites. Reply: None
Test 2. 8 bronze age ppl can build an ark:Because of its extreme length and wood construction, Wyoming tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold (see hogging and sagging). Wyoming had to use pumps to keep its hold relatively free of water. In March 1924, it foundered in heavy seas and sank with the loss of all hands. Largest wooden ship ever build in the real world. No pumps in the bronze age either, and the ark was supposed to be bigger making it even more impossible.
Test 3: 8 ppl can feed, take care of 10000 plus animals. London Zoo has 750 employees for 17480 animals.
Logical fallacy: Marsupials live exclusively in Australia: How did they get there after the great flood.
The problem is not that I don't give any tests, the problem is that you don't accept them as tests. These are not little inconsistensies. These are huge gaping holes in your logic.
I'll show you more tests if you want to. But I'm guessing you, like aways. Will blame it on your secular scientist. Talk about circular reasoning.you say: "The bible is always right",I'll reply: "no it isn't because of these facts",you will answer: " the facts are a conspiracy by secular scientist",Ill ask: " got any proof",your reply: " of course I do, it isn't consistent with whats's in the bible"

 

[forkup]

So your first paragraph is a deflection and your second paragraph is an evasion, since you didn't give ANY source just the old argument you're wrong. If the chronoligy is not true give me examples remember. I will not let go of this subject nore will I continue adressing your post until you can offer more then that. It's not a circular argument since I'm not talking about dating. I'm talking about the order fossils appear physicaly. I know that's an ankward fact to you but there it is

First, I think I know more than you about evolution. All of that which you stated for chronological layers are not facts. They're claims by secular scientists due to their beliefs that the earth is old and radiometric dating, discovered by little known Clair Patterson, who gave it to them in 1956 for the age of the earth. The arguments we are having are nothing new, but go back to 1795 and the 1800s. I have been giving you examples all this time, such as the where the names come from for the different layers, catastrophism (which is being usurped by the secular scientists now) vs uniformitarianism, the formation of the Cliffs of Dover, the Australian land formation, ocean floor sediment, coelacanth and dinosaurs, the moon, moon rocks, and so on, and yet you do not see. The last couple of posts, I gave you experimental evidence. That is the ultimate. I gave you Mt. St. Helens which demonstrates the sedimentary layers. Go read and watch those videos. Where is the evolutionists experimental evidence for chronological layers? There is none. You need to have an open mind. It's stuck in the chronology mud of the evolutionists.

This isn't about who won the debate, which I have clearly won, but to compare the evidence of the two sides and judge for yourself. Maybe I went a little further than most by reading some of the Bible. I used to think like you until the early 2000s. but evolution did not answer the questions people had and I had. It was around 2011 that the evo stuff really hit the fan in the media. Actually, the battle started up again in 1925 with the Scopes trial, books by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in the 60s, and more legal trials of creation vs evolution in 1980-90. When comparing the two scientific evidence, it was nolo contendere for creation. The battle for our young peoples minds will continue. It really isn't about religion, but science.

I asked one simple thing, no deflections, no evasions, no avoiding the subject. If the cronology is wrong give me examples.... Now you are avoiding, deflecting, evading and blustering. List of fossil sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is a list of known fossil sites. Like I said you can leave the dating alone, altough not every site here is dated using radiometric dating. You have a hypothesis, namely all KINDS lived togheter, so it's logical that all KINDS will be found togheter. Proof it.

Ha ha. I already gave them to you several times. The fossil record can be used to argue for both sides. However, is the record correct if stratification happens from top-down and not bottom-up? I think you do not have the perspicacity to let go of your presuppositions about evolution and then compare the two arguments side-by-side. The notion that evolution is a scientific theory while creation is nothing more than religious mysticism is blatantly false, and I think I have more than adequately shown that. Any rational person would be able to pull out your basic arguments and extract out my basic arguments and compare them side-by-side.

This, in lieu of, not knowing about the Bible. While the Bible is an important document that supplements creation science, the intent is to extract the truth and not present something used to convert someone whether they be atheist or another religion. Secular scientists have their own "truth" theories based on their own scientists and celebrities such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and so on. With the Bible, the creationists have God on their side. My intention was not to present a religious argument, but a scientific one and I think I've did that.

In the end, I presented an experimental and testable, as well as a natural one as evidence. I also presented testable evidence with the atomic clocks and spacetime. I presented testable evidence of electromagnetic propulsion to be used in traveling at the speed of light. I gave evidence for the distance between the earth and the moon and how one can tell how old the earth is. I showed that one cannot measure with any accuracy the distance to the nearest sun (star) in another galaxy. I agreed that one can map the positions of stars, moon, and other planets by knowing the date. I presented documented evidence that the layers of the earth are based on location and not time.

I presented a logical argument for the existence of a Creator or God with the Kalam Cosmological Argument and other logic arguments. I presented historical truths about the hidden cultural artifacts showing dinosaurs were called dragons before the word "dinosaur" was coined. I presented the testability of natural selection and genetics which are part of both creation and evolution sciences. Evolutionists try to claim it as their own and mislead people into thinking that is what evolution is. I've presented evidence that creation scientists have been shut out of the scientific establishment by not accepting any of the arguments of creation scientists. I've pointed out that this is getting only one side of the story. I gave evidence that evolution is driven by money or grants given to those scientists that find evidence for evolution, no matter how misplaced it could be. I've pointed out that the media tries to use evolutionary ideas in their articles by pointing out the chronology of evolution every chance they get. I've pointed out that all of this ToE is wrong. If it was true, then everyone would not have to be told of an old earth over and over. They would just know it as fact.

In addition to this, I've pointed out the fallacies in the evolutionists arguments with their radiometric dating, ideas that things like a macro-change in species could happen by chance in nature given enough time. We didn't get into that, but that is called mutation. Mutation is generally negative or neutral. It does not produce positive traits for a faster, stronger, and better species. This has been documented in scientific tests, observations, and experiments.

I've shown that atheist scientists like Carl Sagan was wrong with their theories on stuff of like (see Miller-Uray experiment). I've stated that evolutionists cannot and have not created any forms of life -- even the basic building block of a protein molecule (can only be created "within" a cell. I've pointed out and argued about beauty and complexity cannot come from evolution, but from creation or an intelligent designer. I've presented that parsimony shows that the creation side rules all.

All of the denial of the above is what I would call being brainwashed, forkup. I've also pointed out that we all will find out in the end which one of us is right and spoke the truth. I mentioned the existence of consciousness at the near-death stage and what happens. Beyond that, actual death, is not known and cannot possibly be known. That is what God said in the Bible even before we got to that stage with neurology and the medical sciences. Again, he who laughs last, laughs best, Mr. Forkup. I will be laughing loud and hearty when your time is up. If I am right, then you will clearly hear. If you and evolutionists are right, all that evolution and billions of years ends up with a relatively short life and people saying, "Is that all there is?" No judgment. No consequences. Just loss of consciousness and death. Ha ha.

You have shown exactly zero testable theories. You have shown myth, filosofy, theoligy, hell you even try to site the Loch Ness monster as proof. The only fault you have shown with radiometric dating is that it comes out with dates you don't agree with. You haven't adressed genetic similarities, PROVEN, TESTABLE simularities, you haven't explained cosmic distances and how we see light from far of places, exept saying somehow science forgot to take spacetime into account. You somehow try to admit survival of the fittest, but don't accept it's logical conclusion. You can't explain away the simple physical impossibility of 8 ppl building and manning the biggest wooden boat ever conceived, stocking it with enough food and fresh water to take care of what conservativly using creationist estimates 10000 plus animals for a full year. The fact that science makes mistakes is the strenght of science we are not married to our ideas. You say Creationism is scientific and yet you offer nothing of proof. In the course of this discussion I have done extensive research on the diiferent claims made in creatonism. I found that even amongst yourselfs you guys can't even agree on what you guys disagree on. this guy for instance knows stratafication of species happens and then gives a completly bizar explanation Like even in this post. Top bottom, bottem up, dated, sideways it matters not a single thing, the fact of the matter is something you still haven't shown any proof of. Unless you can come up with a way why stratafication would happen in the same order, excluding the same types of species all across the earth you lose. I have seen 3 different sets of semi-scientific flood events, all thouroghly debunked. I have shown you a creationist geoligist trying to create whirlpools that suck dinosaurs to the bottom. On and ON but you feel like you won? Guess it has to be nice to live in a world where facts take a backseat to your own beliefs but I don't roll that way. Like I said I have asked now at least 6 times of you to come up with proof to something wich is a long standing pro evolution argument. An argument wich is easily testable. And since you always refer to secular scientist. This had to have been tested by your Creasionist scientist. You have come up with nothing. That is a fact. And believe me I let you of easy since I didn't make you argue dating.

Ha ha. Are you looking in the mirror and talking about yourself? You have shown no experiments to test what you claim. Radiometric dating comes out with dates many do not agree with. Only the secular scientists who agree with each other. If it does not fall within their preconceived time ranges of ToE, then it is considered to be in error. The whole dating of moon rocks should be tossed out, but only the ones which measured billions of years were kept. How do you explain when they date something which they know such as rocks from a volcanic eruption that just occurred, it gives times of milions of years?. You probably do not know why they only radiometric test certain items. Please explain radiometric dating and which dates are valid and why this is so. I'm still waiting for your dating of one moon rock.

I gave you Piltdown Man as the fakery that the evolutionists tried to pull. It mislead a generation. Then you gave me Lucy whose one knee was found about 1.5 miles away and much deeper in the ground that the rest of Lucy. It's not part of Lucy. More fakery. You had to STFU as you had no reply to it. I'm still waiting for your explanation of lightyears to the nearest star using astronomy when you did not take into account spacetime. And I didn't mention the Loch Ness monster, but our own Champ. I provided the links to all of the these. You provided only a few links and they weren't convincing. I've got thousands of eyewitnesses to Champ while your side has no one who has seen any evolution actually occur. Birds did not descend from dinosaurs. What happened to the Archaeopteryx? Where is the evidence to show birds descended from dinosaurs when OSU has shown that the lungs and skeletal structure of birds are different from dinosaurs. That makes it an impossible descent. Even your apes to man infograph has no testable proof. How can you be so naive and stubborn?

Facts do not take a backseat. You do not even know what the facts are. You are a huge joke. You are simply hilarious. Both sides have the same facts. It's the interpretation of these facts is what's different. Any intelligent person knows this. You can't even get past first base trying to show how knowledgeable you are on evolution. Lol.

I'm sick of explaining over and over to a simpleton. So one last time, here is more proof of creation in addition to what I have already summarized. It proves to all these people here that you did not read the links I provided. Science backs up the Bible even though it is not a science book. How many times did I say to you lol? It just goes in one ear and out the other because of your preconceived ideas.

The Bible is the world's best selling book of all time at five billion copies. How stupid are those atheists who do not know this and have not read the Bible. We've seen those snide comments in this thread, haven't we? Atheists are usually wrong. Ha ha.

Cosmology/Astronomy
Time had a beginning. The universe had a beginning. Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe. Haven't you heard, "All that is and all that there will be." The steady state theory of atheist science was shown to be pseudoscience. The universe was created from the invisible or supernatural. The dimensions of the universe were created. The universe is expanding, but creation scientists theorize it has an edge, i.e. there are limits to it and it does not forever keep expanding. The universe is winding down and will "wear out." The second law of thermodynamics ensures that the universe will run down due to "heat death" or maximum entropy. Genesis provides the correct order of creation. The numbers of stars exceed a billion. Stated from ancient times when one can only count 3000 stars. Every star is different. Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups. Light is in motion. The Earth is controlled by the heavens. Earth is a sphere. There goes some atheist claims that creationists think the earth is flat lol. At any time, there is day and night on Earth. Earth is suspended in space. The physical laws are constant.

Earth Sciences
Earth began as a waterworld. Formation of continents by tectonic activity described from Pangaea to today. The water cycle is described. Valleys exist at the bottom of the sea. Vents exist at the bottom of the sea. It describes the ocean currents in the sea. Air has weight. Winds blow in circular paths.

Biology
The chemical nature of human life. Life of creatures in in the blood. The nature of infectious diseases. Importance of sanitation to health.

Science in the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?

All of the above has been discovered by science and it backs up what the Bible stated from the 2nd to the 4th century.

All of the above stated way before evolution. What science has backed up the ToE? When did the ToE start?

So, you can add this to all of the summations I made to you in my three or four summary posts. Where is your ToE summary? All you did was foolishly ask six times for the evidence when it was given to you had you clicked and read the link.

Now where is the proof for evolution? You probably can't explain evolution. How many copies did Darwin's book sell? What is the complete title of his book? I doubt you know any of this. Ha ha.

Is your handle forkup because you continue to forkup.

I also want to talk about the bible a bit. First of the text you say is the bible, is at best a translation of a translation of a translation. It went from Biblical Hebrew or Arameic into Athic Greek,into Latin,into English. I'm bilingual and I can attest that translating from 1 language to another 1 isn't easy,some words and idioms don't translate all that well. And I'm talking about 2 alive modern languages. The time gap between the original text and the actual putting togheter of the bible. Garantues that stuff will be lost in translation. Siting it as proof for modern scientific concepts is false. The prose is interpretal. I'll illustrate using your earth is flat argument.

• • "Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth… reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” Only with a flat Earth could a tall tree be visible from "the Earth's farthest bounds" — this is impossible on a spherical earth.

• Matthew 4:8: "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world"
• Luke 4:5: "And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time."

• Isaiah 11:12 "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."
• Revelation 7:1 "And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree."

The fact is that all these statements imply or could be construed as supporting a flat Earth And it's a TEST of the ambigious nature of the bible texts.
And the fact that there is no way to really know what the original text said makes the exercise in itself highly suspect to begin with.

 

[Vandalshandle]

There is a guy who preaches Creationism on the corner of Market and New Montgomery in San Francisco, and he is funded by taxpayer dollars. I know that he does not work, so he probably is on some sort of public assistance. He is very interesting, especially when he starts screaming about everyone going to hell. He has explained that god buried all the fossils just to confuse us. Some sort of pop quiz, I guess.

 

[james bond]

First, I think I know more than you about evolution. All of that which you stated for chronological layers are not facts. They're claims by secular scientists due to their beliefs that the earth is old and radiometric dating, discovered by little known Clair Patterson, who gave it to them in 1956 for the age of the earth. The arguments we are having are nothing new, but go back to 1795 and the 1800s. I have been giving you examples all this time, such as the where the names come from for the different layers, catastrophism (which is being usurped by the secular scientists now) vs uniformitarianism, the formation of the Cliffs of Dover, the Australian land formation, ocean floor sediment, coelacanth and dinosaurs, the moon, moon rocks, and so on, and yet you do not see. The last couple of posts, I gave you experimental evidence. That is the ultimate. I gave you Mt. St. Helens which demonstrates the sedimentary layers. Go read and watch those videos. Where is the evolutionists experimental evidence for chronological layers? There is none. You need to have an open mind. It's stuck in the chronology mud of the evolutionists.

This isn't about who won the debate, which I have clearly won, but to compare the evidence of the two sides and judge for yourself. Maybe I went a little further than most by reading some of the Bible. I used to think like you until the early 2000s. but evolution did not answer the questions people had and I had. It was around 2011 that the evo stuff really hit the fan in the media. Actually, the battle started up again in 1925 with the Scopes trial, books by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in the 60s, and more legal trials of creation vs evolution in 1980-90. When comparing the two scientific evidence, it was nolo contendere for creation. The battle for our young peoples minds will continue. It really isn't about religion, but science.

I asked one simple thing, no deflections, no evasions, no avoiding the subject. If the cronology is wrong give me examples.... Now you are avoiding, deflecting, evading and blustering. List of fossil sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is a list of known fossil sites. Like I said you can leave the dating alone, altough not every site here is dated using radiometric dating. You have a hypothesis, namely all KINDS lived togheter, so it's logical that all KINDS will be found togheter. Proof it.

Ha ha. I already gave them to you several times. The fossil record can be used to argue for both sides. However, is the record correct if stratification happens from top-down and not bottom-up? I think you do not have the perspicacity to let go of your presuppositions about evolution and then compare the two arguments side-by-side. The notion that evolution is a scientific theory while creation is nothing more than religious mysticism is blatantly false, and I think I have more than adequately shown that. Any rational person would be able to pull out your basic arguments and extract out my basic arguments and compare them side-by-side.

This, in lieu of, not knowing about the Bible. While the Bible is an important document that supplements creation science, the intent is to extract the truth and not present something used to convert someone whether they be atheist or another religion. Secular scientists have their own "truth" theories based on their own scientists and celebrities such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and so on. With the Bible, the creationists have God on their side. My intention was not to present a religious argument, but a scientific one and I think I've did that.

In the end, I presented an experimental and testable, as well as a natural one as evidence. I also presented testable evidence with the atomic clocks and spacetime. I presented testable evidence of electromagnetic propulsion to be used in traveling at the speed of light. I gave evidence for the distance between the earth and the moon and how one can tell how old the earth is. I showed that one cannot measure with any accuracy the distance to the nearest sun (star) in another galaxy. I agreed that one can map the positions of stars, moon, and other planets by knowing the date. I presented documented evidence that the layers of the earth are based on location and not time.

I presented a logical argument for the existence of a Creator or God with the Kalam Cosmological Argument and other logic arguments. I presented historical truths about the hidden cultural artifacts showing dinosaurs were called dragons before the word "dinosaur" was coined. I presented the testability of natural selection and genetics which are part of both creation and evolution sciences. Evolutionists try to claim it as their own and mislead people into thinking that is what evolution is. I've presented evidence that creation scientists have been shut out of the scientific establishment by not accepting any of the arguments of creation scientists. I've pointed out that this is getting only one side of the story. I gave evidence that evolution is driven by money or grants given to those scientists that find evidence for evolution, no matter how misplaced it could be. I've pointed out that the media tries to use evolutionary ideas in their articles by pointing out the chronology of evolution every chance they get. I've pointed out that all of this ToE is wrong. If it was true, then everyone would not have to be told of an old earth over and over. They would just know it as fact.

In addition to this, I've pointed out the fallacies in the evolutionists arguments with their radiometric dating, ideas that things like a macro-change in species could happen by chance in nature given enough time. We didn't get into that, but that is called mutation. Mutation is generally negative or neutral. It does not produce positive traits for a faster, stronger, and better species. This has been documented in scientific tests, observations, and experiments.

I've shown that atheist scientists like Carl Sagan was wrong with their theories on stuff of like (see Miller-Uray experiment). I've stated that evolutionists cannot and have not created any forms of life -- even the basic building block of a protein molecule (can only be created "within" a cell. I've pointed out and argued about beauty and complexity cannot come from evolution, but from creation or an intelligent designer. I've presented that parsimony shows that the creation side rules all.

All of the denial of the above is what I would call being brainwashed, forkup. I've also pointed out that we all will find out in the end which one of us is right and spoke the truth. I mentioned the existence of consciousness at the near-death stage and what happens. Beyond that, actual death, is not known and cannot possibly be known. That is what God said in the Bible even before we got to that stage with neurology and the medical sciences. Again, he who laughs last, laughs best, Mr. Forkup. I will be laughing loud and hearty when your time is up. If I am right, then you will clearly hear. If you and evolutionists are right, all that evolution and billions of years ends up with a relatively short life and people saying, "Is that all there is?" No judgment. No consequences. Just loss of consciousness and death. Ha ha.

You have shown exactly zero testable theories. You have shown myth, filosofy, theoligy, hell you even try to site the Loch Ness monster as proof. The only fault you have shown with radiometric dating is that it comes out with dates you don't agree with. You haven't adressed genetic similarities, PROVEN, TESTABLE simularities, you haven't explained cosmic distances and how we see light from far of places, exept saying somehow science forgot to take spacetime into account. You somehow try to admit survival of the fittest, but don't accept it's logical conclusion. You can't explain away the simple physical impossibility of 8 ppl building and manning the biggest wooden boat ever conceived, stocking it with enough food and fresh water to take care of what conservativly using creationist estimates 10000 plus animals for a full year. The fact that science makes mistakes is the strenght of science we are not married to our ideas. You say Creationism is scientific and yet you offer nothing of proof. In the course of this discussion I have done extensive research on the diiferent claims made in creatonism. I found that even amongst yourselfs you guys can't even agree on what you guys disagree on. this guy for instance knows stratafication of species happens and then gives a completly bizar explanation Like even in this post. Top bottom, bottem up, dated, sideways it matters not a single thing, the fact of the matter is something you still haven't shown any proof of. Unless you can come up with a way why stratafication would happen in the same order, excluding the same types of species all across the earth you lose. I have seen 3 different sets of semi-scientific flood events, all thouroghly debunked. I have shown you a creationist geoligist trying to create whirlpools that suck dinosaurs to the bottom. On and ON but you feel like you won? Guess it has to be nice to live in a world where facts take a backseat to your own beliefs but I don't roll that way. Like I said I have asked now at least 6 times of you to come up with proof to something wich is a long standing pro evolution argument. An argument wich is easily testable. And since you always refer to secular scientist. This had to have been tested by your Creasionist scientist. You have come up with nothing. That is a fact. And believe me I let you of easy since I didn't make you argue dating.

Ha ha. Are you looking in the mirror and talking about yourself? You have shown no experiments to test what you claim. Radiometric dating comes out with dates many do not agree with. Only the secular scientists who agree with each other. If it does not fall within their preconceived time ranges of ToE, then it is considered to be in error. The whole dating of moon rocks should be tossed out, but only the ones which measured billions of years were kept. How do you explain when they date something which they know such as rocks from a volcanic eruption that just occurred, it gives times of milions of years?. You probably do not know why they only radiometric test certain items. Please explain radiometric dating and which dates are valid and why this is so. I'm still waiting for your dating of one moon rock.

I gave you Piltdown Man as the fakery that the evolutionists tried to pull. It mislead a generation. Then you gave me Lucy whose one knee was found about 1.5 miles away and much deeper in the ground that the rest of Lucy. It's not part of Lucy. More fakery. You had to STFU as you had no reply to it. I'm still waiting for your explanation of lightyears to the nearest star using astronomy when you did not take into account spacetime. And I didn't mention the Loch Ness monster, but our own Champ. I provided the links to all of the these. You provided only a few links and they weren't convincing. I've got thousands of eyewitnesses to Champ while your side has no one who has seen any evolution actually occur. Birds did not descend from dinosaurs. What happened to the Archaeopteryx? Where is the evidence to show birds descended from dinosaurs when OSU has shown that the lungs and skeletal structure of birds are different from dinosaurs. That makes it an impossible descent. Even your apes to man infograph has no testable proof. How can you be so naive and stubborn?

Facts do not take a backseat. You do not even know what the facts are. You are a huge joke. You are simply hilarious. Both sides have the same facts. It's the interpretation of these facts is what's different. Any intelligent person knows this. You can't even get past first base trying to show how knowledgeable you are on evolution. Lol.

I'm sick of explaining over and over to a simpleton. So one last time, here is more proof of creation in addition to what I have already summarized. It proves to all these people here that you did not read the links I provided. Science backs up the Bible even though it is not a science book. How many times did I say to you lol? It just goes in one ear and out the other because of your preconceived ideas.

The Bible is the world's best selling book of all time at five billion copies. How stupid are those atheists who do not know this and have not read the Bible. We've seen those snide comments in this thread, haven't we? Atheists are usually wrong. Ha ha.

Cosmology/Astronomy
Time had a beginning. The universe had a beginning. Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe. Haven't you heard, "All that is and all that there will be." The steady state theory of atheist science was shown to be pseudoscience. The universe was created from the invisible or supernatural. The dimensions of the universe were created. The universe is expanding, but creation scientists theorize it has an edge, i.e. there are limits to it and it does not forever keep expanding. The universe is winding down and will "wear out." The second law of thermodynamics ensures that the universe will run down due to "heat death" or maximum entropy. Genesis provides the correct order of creation. The numbers of stars exceed a billion. Stated from ancient times when one can only count 3000 stars. Every star is different. Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups. Light is in motion. The Earth is controlled by the heavens. Earth is a sphere. There goes some atheist claims that creationists think the earth is flat lol. At any time, there is day and night on Earth. Earth is suspended in space. The physical laws are constant.

Earth Sciences
Earth began as a waterworld. Formation of continents by tectonic activity described from Pangaea to today. The water cycle is described. Valleys exist at the bottom of the sea. Vents exist at the bottom of the sea. It describes the ocean currents in the sea. Air has weight. Winds blow in circular paths.

Biology
The chemical nature of human life. Life of creatures in in the blood. The nature of infectious diseases. Importance of sanitation to health.

Science in the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?

All of the above has been discovered by science and it backs up what the Bible stated from the 2nd to the 4th century.

All of the above stated way before evolution. What science has backed up the ToE? When did the ToE start?

So, you can add this to all of the summations I made to you in my three or four summary posts. Where is your ToE summary? All you did was foolishly ask six times for the evidence when it was given to you had you clicked and read the link.

Now where is the proof for evolution? You probably can't explain evolution. How many copies did Darwin's book sell? What is the complete title of his book? I doubt you know any of this. Ha ha.

Is your handle forkup because you continue to forkup.

.

Only the secular scientists who agree with each other.

Ha ha. Are you looking in the mirror and talking about yourself?

Are you looking in the mirror ...

the only people in disagreement without verification are yourself and the creationist ... one can only guess what you see when you look.

All of the above has been discovered by science and it backs up what the Bible stated from the 2nd to the 4th century.

it didn't exist in the first and no, the Atmosphere on Earth is not the same as throughout the universe.

.

What do I see when I look in the mirror? I see God, who has created me in his own image.

So, how many days now have you gone without any evidence or verification of evolution or atheism? The answer is since the beginning of time, which encompasses somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years give or take.

I'm still waiting for the atheism book that has truth in it and science backs it up. Now, that would take billions and billions of years for it to happen.

What about Noah's Flood, all the animals, including the dinosaurs? They'll be all there at the Ark Encounter grand opening in Kentucky, July 7th. People will be amazed and will see first hand how all of it happened.

Where is the atheist theme park? Where are the atheists who go door-to-door to explain atheism? There ain't none as there is nothing interesting to talk about. Too booring. That's when it is so boring that people start to boo.

If this stuff wasn't true, then people would not go to the Ark Encounter and the Bible would not have become the all-time best selling book.

Are you eating GMO food like those atheist scientists tell you? Neil DeGrasse Tyson says that GMO food is perfectly safe. Let me know if you develop any allergies. Some of these allergies can cause cancer, shorten your life, and kill you. OTOH creation scientists recommend non-GMO foods and try to eat organic when possible. Organic is the way we used to grow all food.