If God doesn't exist...

[forkup]

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.

1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.



2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.

Please watch this video for an excellent demonstration of fossils transitioning from simple life to complex vertebrates.



3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.



4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.

In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordatadescended from a common ancestor.



5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.

When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.

These are a few proofs of evolution. All is been tested and confirmed by multiple sources. There is nothing in here you have a real alternative explanation for except evolution happens. So when you say there is no verification of evolution. You should say there is no verification I'll accept.
I wasn't aware that having a themepark makes something more credible. Would you allow theme parks in Darwin. You have to admit having a major town named after you, gives a fair amount of credibility too lol.

 

[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.

'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"

The person who has shown no proof is just look in the mirror. It's YOU. This is because science doesn't back up what the atheists claim. Evolution is a lie that has been told so many times over and over that people believe it. I pointed out the Piltdown Man. A whole generation believed it was the missing link. You still believe Lucy is evidence when I told you the facts. What about the Nebraska Man? It turned out to be a pig's tooth, not a human or even an ape's.

1, 2 and 3. Atheists are usually wrong and you're wrong about Adam and Eve's immediate ancestors not living for hundreds of years. The environment and the universe were different then, so people could live a long time. We already discussed this. They were more perfect. They were healthier than people after Noah's Flood. Remember, I pointed out the people of Pompeii who had perfect teeth? There is some recorded history of ancient people living around 300 years. This has nothing to do with Christianity, but it is in the historical record. You're only spouting what the atheist scientists have told you.

Did Ancient People Really Have Lifespans Longer Than 200 Years?

Will the Ark Encounter have exhibits of human longevity before the global flood? I hope it does. Would be disappointed if it did not address this. Noah was 500 when he started building the Ark. He completed it in 100 hundred years even though God gave him 120 years to do it.

We're just flitting from topic to topic which I have covered already and presented the evidence. You have presented nothing and keep insisting on evolution. You believe in aliens without one shred of evidence. You believe in macroevolution without one shred of evidence. You believe complex life can spring out of nothing or a primordial soup when your scientists have failed in creating the most basic of life, the protein molecule. You believe mutation has positive benefits. You think that lower levels of sedimentary rock contain older fossils than the upper levels without any proof whatsover. You believe the Cliffs of Dover took millions of years to form. Your so-called celeb scientists believe in multiverses, that the universe is primed for life, the universe can start from nothing. there are things such as dark matter and energy, God plays dice and other ridiculous notions. There is not one shred of evidence. You believe that GMO crops are good. I was talking with a pot smoker and he said he would prefer to smoke a hybrid plant than a GMO one. Why is that? Cause hybrids were naturally produced. It also goes to show that intelligent being had to interact to form these hybrid plants, even though they were interbred. It does not happen in the wild. Then your atheist scientists create a GMO version and try to pass it off as better and safe. You believe the universe is expanding and will continue to expand. This isn't true. A peer-reviewed paper has shown that the universe has an edge. Thus, there is a limit and end to the universe. There are no multiverses. One can't go back in time unless there is something else besides our present belief systems. Atheist scientists think that exploration of quantum physics can help us achieve this and show muti-dimensional reality. Yet, you do not understand the basics of the 4th dimension or spacetime. You believe in mutidimensions. There is a basic saying, "If it stinks, it's chemistry. If it crawls, it's biology. If it doesn't work, it's physics." I've added, "If it's wrong, it's evolution." It's no wonder you have not presented anything, but continue to believe that what I presented isn't true. It's true. The proof is in the pudding, but your evolution brain just cannot accept it.

 

[james bond]

1. The universal genetic code

. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.



2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.

Please watch this video for an excellent demonstration of fossils transitioning from simple life to complex vertebrates.



3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.



4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.

In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordatadescended from a common ancestor.



5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.

When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.

These are a few proofs of evolution. All is been tested and confirmed by multiple sources. There is nothing in here you have a real alternative explanation for except evolution happens. So when you say there is no verification of evolution. You should say there is no verification I'll accept.
I wasn't aware that having a themepark makes something more credible. Would you allow theme parks in Darwin. You have to admit having a major town named after you, gives a fair amount of credibility too lol.

Nice copy and paste job. Please explain what you mean in your own words, so I know you understand it, and I'll be glad to rebut all your points, but here's a sample.

1. I've been talking about this since I'm blue in the face. Show me how the single-cell started. The basic building block of the protein molecule cannot be created outside the cell.

2. I've already talked about the fossil record. I anticipated how you were going to use it. We're going to come to different conclusions. I gave you testable evidence of how stratification works with catastrophism and how the top layer could be older than the bottom layer. Also, presented Mt. St. Helens as the recent evidence in nature. It nicely follows what the experiment demonstrated. It took you this long to come around to it.

3. Just because there are genetic commonalities does not mean they're the same.

4. Please explain where you are going with this.

5. Ho hum. That's natural selection and Alfred Russel Wallace, creation scientists and I have demonstrated this is part of creation science. You see how your copy and paste job tries to take credit for it? Has evolution created bacteria? Nope. Even the most simplest bacterium is complex. Ha ha. Please explain how this is strictly evolution. Complexity and beauty shows intelligent design and God.

 

[forkup]

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"

The person who has shown no proof is just look in the mirror. It's YOU. This is because science doesn't back up what the atheists claim. Evolution is a lie that has been told so many times over and over that people believe it. I pointed out the Piltdown Man. A whole generation believed it was the missing link. You still believe Lucy is evidence when I told you the facts. What about the Nebraska Man? It turned out to be a pig's tooth, not a human or even an ape's.

1, 2 and 3. Atheists are usually wrong and you're wrong about Adam and Eve's immediate ancestors not living for hundreds of years. The environment and the universe were different then, so people could live a long time. We already discussed this. They were more perfect. They were healthier than people after Noah's Flood. Remember, I pointed out the people of Pompeii who had perfect teeth? There is some recorded history of ancient people living around 300 years. This has nothing to do with Christianity, but it is in the historical record. You're only spouting what the atheist scientists have told you.

Did Ancient People Really Have Lifespans Longer Than 200 Years?

Will the Ark Encounter have exhibits of human longevity before the global flood? I hope it does. Would be disappointed if it did not address this. Noah was 500 when he started building the Ark. He completed it in 100 hundred years even though God gave him 120 years to do it.

We're just flitting from topic to topic which I have covered already and presented the evidence. You have presented nothing and keep insisting on evolution. You believe in aliens without one shred of evidence. You believe in macroevolution without one shred of evidence. You believe complex life can spring out of nothing or a primordial soup when your scientists have failed in creating the most basic of life, the protein molecule. You believe mutation has positive benefits. You think that lower levels of sedimentary rock contain older fossils than the upper levels without any proof whatsover. You believe the Cliffs of Dover took millions of years to form. Your so-called celeb scientists believe in multiverses, that the universe is primed for life, the universe can start from nothing. there are things such as dark matter and energy, God plays dice and other ridiculous notions. There is not one shred of evidence. You believe that GMO crops are good. I was talking with a pot smoker and he said he would prefer to smoke a hybrid plant than a GMO one. Why is that? Cause hybrids were naturally produced. It also goes to show that intelligent being had to interact to form these hybrid plants, even though they were interbred. It does not happen in the wild. Then your atheist scientists create a GMO version and try to pass it off as better and safe. You believe the universe is expanding and will continue to expand. This isn't true. A peer-reviewed paper has shown that the universe has an edge. Thus, there is a limit and end to the universe. There are no multiverses. One can't go back in time unless there is something else besides our present belief systems. Atheist scientists think that exploration of quantum physics can help us achieve this and show muti-dimensional reality. Yet, you do not understand the basics of the 4th dimension or spacetime. You believe in mutidimensions. There is a basic saying, "If it stinks, it's chemistry. If it crawls, it's biology. If it doesn't work, it's physics." I've added, "If it's wrong, it's evolution." It's no wonder you have not presented anything, but continue to believe that what I presented isn't true. It's true. The proof is in the pudding, but your evolution brain just cannot accept it.

Well like I said a million times before. Nothing to you actually means. Nothing I will accept. I have given you plenty of test using real life and what we can discern from the ground. The body of evidence is staggering litteraly covering all known sciences. Doesn't it botter you in the slightest, that altough you claim to have an open mind and you claim to adhere to the scientific method. Not a single source or explanation offered would be accepted by this scientific method. Furthermore you claim you know more about science then I do, yet all the things you say would give you an F in all introductionary science classes. Give me 1 test just 1 using the real world that I have no explanation for. As to lucy give me a source to your claim. As to Piltdown man. You are saying making mistakes invalidates all that we know. Let me tell you, like I did before. Piltdown man was accepted, and after it was found out a hoax, it was quickly and completly abandoned by all the scientific community. Like I said before, not a single argument Creationists use is ever completly abondened no matter how completly it is debunked. That alone is a TEST of its scientific validity.

 

[forkup]

1. The universal genetic code

. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.



2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.

Please watch this video for an excellent demonstration of fossils transitioning from simple life to complex vertebrates.



3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.



4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.

In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordatadescended from a common ancestor.



5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.

When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.

These are a few proofs of evolution. All is been tested and confirmed by multiple sources. There is nothing in here you have a real alternative explanation for except evolution happens. So when you say there is no verification of evolution. You should say there is no verification I'll accept.
I wasn't aware that having a themepark makes something more credible. Would you allow theme parks in Darwin. You have to admit having a major town named after you, gives a fair amount of credibility too lol.

Nice copy and paste job. Please explain what you mean in your own words, so I know you understand it, and I'll be glad to rebut all your points.

Oh you mean you never copy pasted anything before in the course of this discussion? Be carefull how you answer that.
I have used 2,3 and 5 at lenght already. The first means that since you claim kinds are unrelated. It is bizarre that all genetic code is written in the same language. Furthermore the genetic code gives a benchmark to estimate when different species diverged. Wich then can be independidly confirmed by finding rocks of approxmaly the same age. Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This beiing a prime example. These specimens where found due to a targeted search using genetics to pinpoint where this creature should be found.
Four is just the weird fact. That early stage embryos actually go to all stages of evolution in an accelerated rate as they develop.

 

[forkup]

1. The universal genetic code

. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.



2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.

Please watch this video for an excellent demonstration of fossils transitioning from simple life to complex vertebrates.



3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.



4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.

In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordatadescended from a common ancestor.



5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.

When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.

These are a few proofs of evolution. All is been tested and confirmed by multiple sources. There is nothing in here you have a real alternative explanation for except evolution happens. So when you say there is no verification of evolution. You should say there is no verification I'll accept.
I wasn't aware that having a themepark makes something more credible. Would you allow theme parks in Darwin. You have to admit having a major town named after you, gives a fair amount of credibility too lol.

Nice copy and paste job. Please explain what you mean in your own words, so I know you understand it, and I'll be glad to rebut all your points, but here's a sample.

1. I've been talking about this since I'm blue in the face. Show me how the single-cell started. The basic building block of the protein molecule cannot be created outside the cell.

2. I've already talked about the fossil record. I anticipated how you were going to use it. We're going to come to different conclusions. I gave you testable evidence of how stratification works with catastrophism and how the top layer could be older than the bottom layer. Also, presented Mt. St. Helens as the recent evidence in nature. It nicely follows what the experiment demonstrated. It took you this long to come around to it.

3. Just because there are genetic commonalities does not mean they're the same.

4. Please explain where you are going with this.

5. Ho hum. That's natural selection and Alfred Russel Wallace, creation scientists and I have demonstrated this is part of creation science. You see how your copy and paste job tries to take credit for it? Has evolution created bacteria? Nope. Even the most simplest bacterium is complex. Ha ha. Please explain how this is strictly evolution. Complexity and beauty shows intelligent design and God.

This is again a copy and past job. But it does nicely show you how Creationist try to selectivly use data to try and discredit evolution.
The main problem with this argument is that it assumes abiogenesis (the initial formation of life from simpler molecules) was a totally random process. It also assumes that in order for abiogenesis to be successful, a complete microbe would have had to form spontaneously. In fact, the same non-random forces which propel biological evolution also propelled abiogenesis. Specifically, Natural Selection.

The calculation which supports the creationist argument begins with the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 1080. So, if a simple protein has that unlikely chance of forming, what hope does a complete bacterium have?

If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case.

Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-randomforces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all.

For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1040, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10390 claim creationists often cite.

Though, to be fair, 1040 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth.

In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 1024 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 1031 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 1040, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed.

The Probability of Life | Evolution FAQ, this second link explains it in more detail Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations
the numbers stated are of since apperently the copy and pasting didn't allow a correct representation it for instance it's nt 10390 but 10 to the power 390

 

[forkup]

1. The universal genetic code

. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.



2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.

Please watch this video for an excellent demonstration of fossils transitioning from simple life to complex vertebrates.



3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.



4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.

In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordatadescended from a common ancestor.



5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.

When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.

These are a few proofs of evolution. All is been tested and confirmed by multiple sources. There is nothing in here you have a real alternative explanation for except evolution happens. So when you say there is no verification of evolution. You should say there is no verification I'll accept.
I wasn't aware that having a themepark makes something more credible. Would you allow theme parks in Darwin. You have to admit having a major town named after you, gives a fair amount of credibility too lol.

Nice copy and paste job. Please explain what you mean in your own words, so I know you understand it, and I'll be glad to rebut all your points, but here's a sample.

1. I've been talking about this since I'm blue in the face. Show me how the single-cell started. The basic building block of the protein molecule cannot be created outside the cell.

2. I've already talked about the fossil record. I anticipated how you were going to use it. We're going to come to different conclusions. I gave you testable evidence of how stratification works with catastrophism and how the top layer could be older than the bottom layer. Also, presented Mt. St. Helens as the recent evidence in nature. It nicely follows what the experiment demonstrated. It took you this long to come around to it.

3. Just because there are genetic commonalities does not mean they're the same.

4. Please explain where you are going with this.

5. Ho hum. That's natural selection and Alfred Russel Wallace, creation scientists and I have demonstrated this is part of creation science. You see how your copy and paste job tries to take credit for it? Has evolution created bacteria? Nope. Even the most simplest bacterium is complex. Ha ha. Please explain how this is strictly evolution. Complexity and beauty shows intelligent design and God.

Wallace continued his scientific work in parallel with his social commentary. In 1880, he published Island Life as a sequel to The Geographic Distribution of Animals. In November 1886, Wallace began a ten-month trip to the United States to give a series of popular lectures. Most of the lectures were on Darwinism (evolution through natural selection). Weird creasionist.

 

[james bond]

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"

The person who has shown no proof is just look in the mirror. It's YOU. This is because science doesn't back up what the atheists claim. Evolution is a lie that has been told so many times over and over that people believe it. I pointed out the Piltdown Man. A whole generation believed it was the missing link. You still believe Lucy is evidence when I told you the facts. What about the Nebraska Man? It turned out to be a pig's tooth, not a human or even an ape's.

1, 2 and 3. Atheists are usually wrong and you're wrong about Adam and Eve's immediate ancestors not living for hundreds of years. The environment and the universe were different then, so people could live a long time. We already discussed this. They were more perfect. They were healthier than people after Noah's Flood. Remember, I pointed out the people of Pompeii who had perfect teeth? There is some recorded history of ancient people living around 300 years. This has nothing to do with Christianity, but it is in the historical record. You're only spouting what the atheist scientists have told you.

Did Ancient People Really Have Lifespans Longer Than 200 Years?

Will the Ark Encounter have exhibits of human longevity before the global flood? I hope it does. Would be disappointed if it did not address this. Noah was 500 when he started building the Ark. He completed it in 100 hundred years even though God gave him 120 years to do it.

We're just flitting from topic to topic which I have covered already and presented the evidence. You have presented nothing and keep insisting on evolution. You believe in aliens without one shred of evidence. You believe in macroevolution without one shred of evidence. You believe complex life can spring out of nothing or a primordial soup when your scientists have failed in creating the most basic of life, the protein molecule. You believe mutation has positive benefits. You think that lower levels of sedimentary rock contain older fossils than the upper levels without any proof whatsover. You believe the Cliffs of Dover took millions of years to form. Your so-called celeb scientists believe in multiverses, that the universe is primed for life, the universe can start from nothing. there are things such as dark matter and energy, God plays dice and other ridiculous notions. There is not one shred of evidence. You believe that GMO crops are good. I was talking with a pot smoker and he said he would prefer to smoke a hybrid plant than a GMO one. Why is that? Cause hybrids were naturally produced. It also goes to show that intelligent being had to interact to form these hybrid plants, even though they were interbred. It does not happen in the wild. Then your atheist scientists create a GMO version and try to pass it off as better and safe. You believe the universe is expanding and will continue to expand. This isn't true. A peer-reviewed paper has shown that the universe has an edge. Thus, there is a limit and end to the universe. There are no multiverses. One can't go back in time unless there is something else besides our present belief systems. Atheist scientists think that exploration of quantum physics can help us achieve this and show muti-dimensional reality. Yet, you do not understand the basics of the 4th dimension or spacetime. You believe in mutidimensions. There is a basic saying, "If it stinks, it's chemistry. If it crawls, it's biology. If it doesn't work, it's physics." I've added, "If it's wrong, it's evolution." It's no wonder you have not presented anything, but continue to believe that what I presented isn't true. It's true. The proof is in the pudding, but your evolution brain just cannot accept it.

Well like I said a million times before. Nothing to you actually means. Nothing I will accept. I have given you plenty of test using real life and what we can discern from the ground. The body of evidence is staggering litteraly covering all known sciences. Doesn't it botter you in the slightest, that altough you claim to have an open mind and you claim to adhere to the scientific method. Not a single source or explanation offered would be accepted by this scientific method. Furthermore you claim you know more about science then I do, yet all the things you say would give you an F in all introductionary science classes. Give me 1 test just 1 using the real world that I have no explanation for. As to lucy give me a source to your claim. As to Piltdown man. You are saying making mistakes invalidates all that we know. Let me tell you, like I did before. Piltdown man was accepted, and after it was found out a hoax, it was quickly and completly abandoned by all the scientific community. Like I said before, not a single argument Creationists use is ever completly abondened no matter how completly it is debunked. That alone is a TEST of its scientific validity.

Again, you do not reply to what was said. All you do is deny and spout unintelligent rhetoric and do not further the discussion. It's mind-numbing boring now. I realize that I can explain it to you, but I can not understand for you. It's not making mistakes, but using outright fakery to match the findings with what your believe. That has been the playbook of atheists and it appears to be your playbook, too. You just continue to deny all of the evidence for God. Any test for scientific validity is usually a test showing God instead of atheism.

Let's say we toss two coins. If it comes up two heads or two tails, I win. If it comes up one tail and one head, then you win. That's a simple experiment. Now increase the number of coins to four. Now fifty coins. It's still simple and we can figure out which results determine who won. Now let's take parts of an airplane. Let's say it's a small model plane and it has 350 parts. We toss that with the help of a big bucket and if it forms a plane, you win. It never forms a plane after a thousand tries. We can conclude that your scenario happening is negligible. The next day, I show you the same small model plane and it is put back together and all the parts are in the right place. You ask how did it happen and I say I put it back together. This means there was some intelligence involved in order to put it back together. Also, there was intelligence involved in creating the plane so that all of its parts can be taken apart and put back together. Using this more complex experiment, I have shown that there is existence of intelligence and a designer. Your random chance of it being put together iby itself is negligible. Complexity in even the smallest and what we perceive to be simple life or objects means there is intelligence and design behind it. Not evolution. Ha ha.

ntists to use God to explain when one could not explain something. Atheist usurped it from creationists when they were debating the Big Bang Theory. It's important to note that atheists and their scientists have no qualms about stealing from creation scientist theories or soultions and then refuse to accept their findings because it is based on the Bible, God or the supernatural.

 

[BreezeWood]

. It's not making mistakes, but using outright fakery to match the findings with what your believe.

that indeed is the cornerstone of creationism ....

Any test for scientific validity is usually a test showing God instead of atheism.

.

Using this more complex experiment, I have shown that there is existence of intelligence and a designer. Your random chance of it being put together iby itself is negligible. Complexity in even the smallest and what we perceive to be simple life or objects means there is intelligence and design behind it. Not evolution. Ha ha.

there is only one known example of life so far recorded in the visible universe, all others are the example of the moonscape to the left, the random chance of Bonds example is in fact a sea of intangible conformity of meaningless debree, only in the single example is there true complexity that is not a constant unchanging form of design as an automobile but an everchanging and adapting process that itself is the reason for its existence as well as its origin - evolution. that has a Spiritual foundation.

.

 

[forkup]

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"

The person who has shown no proof is just look in the mirror. It's YOU. This is because science doesn't back up what the atheists claim. Evolution is a lie that has been told so many times over and over that people believe it. I pointed out the Piltdown Man. A whole generation believed it was the missing link. You still believe Lucy is evidence when I told you the facts. What about the Nebraska Man? It turned out to be a pig's tooth, not a human or even an ape's.

1, 2 and 3. Atheists are usually wrong and you're wrong about Adam and Eve's immediate ancestors not living for hundreds of years. The environment and the universe were different then, so people could live a long time. We already discussed this. They were more perfect. They were healthier than people after Noah's Flood. Remember, I pointed out the people of Pompeii who had perfect teeth? There is some recorded history of ancient people living around 300 years. This has nothing to do with Christianity, but it is in the historical record. You're only spouting what the atheist scientists have told you.

Did Ancient People Really Have Lifespans Longer Than 200 Years?

Will the Ark Encounter have exhibits of human longevity before the global flood? I hope it does. Would be disappointed if it did not address this. Noah was 500 when he started building the Ark. He completed it in 100 hundred years even though God gave him 120 years to do it.

We're just flitting from topic to topic which I have covered already and presented the evidence. You have presented nothing and keep insisting on evolution. You believe in aliens without one shred of evidence. You believe in macroevolution without one shred of evidence. You believe complex life can spring out of nothing or a primordial soup when your scientists have failed in creating the most basic of life, the protein molecule. You believe mutation has positive benefits. You think that lower levels of sedimentary rock contain older fossils than the upper levels without any proof whatsover. You believe the Cliffs of Dover took millions of years to form. Your so-called celeb scientists believe in multiverses, that the universe is primed for life, the universe can start from nothing. there are things such as dark matter and energy, God plays dice and other ridiculous notions. There is not one shred of evidence. You believe that GMO crops are good. I was talking with a pot smoker and he said he would prefer to smoke a hybrid plant than a GMO one. Why is that? Cause hybrids were naturally produced. It also goes to show that intelligent being had to interact to form these hybrid plants, even though they were interbred. It does not happen in the wild. Then your atheist scientists create a GMO version and try to pass it off as better and safe. You believe the universe is expanding and will continue to expand. This isn't true. A peer-reviewed paper has shown that the universe has an edge. Thus, there is a limit and end to the universe. There are no multiverses. One can't go back in time unless there is something else besides our present belief systems. Atheist scientists think that exploration of quantum physics can help us achieve this and show muti-dimensional reality. Yet, you do not understand the basics of the 4th dimension or spacetime. You believe in mutidimensions. There is a basic saying, "If it stinks, it's chemistry. If it crawls, it's biology. If it doesn't work, it's physics." I've added, "If it's wrong, it's evolution." It's no wonder you have not presented anything, but continue to believe that what I presented isn't true. It's true. The proof is in the pudding, but your evolution brain just cannot accept it.

Well like I said a million times before. Nothing to you actually means. Nothing I will accept. I have given you plenty of test using real life and what we can discern from the ground. The body of evidence is staggering litteraly covering all known sciences. Doesn't it botter you in the slightest, that altough you claim to have an open mind and you claim to adhere to the scientific method. Not a single source or explanation offered would be accepted by this scientific method. Furthermore you claim you know more about science then I do, yet all the things you say would give you an F in all introductionary science classes. Give me 1 test just 1 using the real world that I have no explanation for. As to lucy give me a source to your claim. As to Piltdown man. You are saying making mistakes invalidates all that we know. Let me tell you, like I did before. Piltdown man was accepted, and after it was found out a hoax, it was quickly and completly abandoned by all the scientific community. Like I said before, not a single argument Creationists use is ever completly abondened no matter how completly it is debunked. That alone is a TEST of its scientific validity.

Again, you do not reply to what was said. All you do is deny and spout unintelligent rhetoric and do not further the discussion. It's mind-numbing boring now. I realize that I can explain it to you, but I can not understand for you. It's not making mistakes, but using outright fakery to match the findings with what your believe. That has been the playbook of atheists and it appears to be your playbook, too. You just continue to deny all of the evidence for God. Any test for scientific validity is usually a test showing God instead of atheism.

Let's say we toss two coins. If it comes up two heads or two tails, I win. If it comes up one tail and one head, then you win. That's a simple experiment. Now increase the number of coins to four. Now fifty coins. It's still simple and we can figure out which results determine who won. Now let's take parts of an airplane. Let's say it's a small model plane and it has 350 parts. We toss that with the help of a big bucket and if it forms a plane, you win. It never forms a plane after a thousand tries. We can conclude that your scenario happening is negligible. The next day, I show you the same small model plane and it is put back together and all the parts are in the right place. You ask how did it happen and I say I put it back together. This means there was some intelligence involved in order to put it back together. Also, there was intelligence involved in creating the plane so that all of its parts can be taken apart and put back together. Using this more complex experiment, I have shown that there is existence of intelligence and a designer. Your random chance of it being put together iby itself is negligible. Complexity in even the smallest and what we perceive to be simple life or objects means there is intelligence and design behind it. Not evolution. Ha ha.

ntists to use God to explain when one could not explain something. Atheist usurped it from creationists when they were debating the Big Bang Theory. It's important to note that atheists and their scientists have no qualms about stealing from creation scientist theories or soultions and then refuse to accept their findings because it is based on the Bible, God or the supernatural.

Apperently you have trouble reading. The first self repeclating protien,wheren't like you claim "a plane" but lets stick to the analogy "a bolt" It also wasn't like you claim 1 bucket. But billions of buckets all thrown up simultaniosly, it also wasn't 1 day, but milions of days . Nore was it random, since in biochemistry molecules want to bond. So that destroys your entire premise but you do not care. Since that would debunk your entire argument. You are right this has gotten boring. The biggest lesson I've learned from this is how people like you think. You care nothing about the scientific process. You feel whatever article, myth, blurry movie, or Acient book, even what you think, carries just as much weight as for instance human life expectancy. Or known numbers of staff members it takes to take care of large groups of animals. Or current distribution of animals. Or the proven track record and predicting capability of dating methods, or genetics,etc,etc. You very rarely offer sources and when you do it's usually an article with a dubious authorship or something which has an easier non-magical explanation, nore is Creationism even in agreement amongst eachother,because I've found in the course of this argument, many, many different beliefs as what happened and why. Their is only one theory amongst scientist, evolution trough natural selection. Scientist disagree on perifial stuff around it, but not a single piece of evidence has shown up, challeging the basis to evolution. And there is a mountain of evidence supporting it. And lastly I answered the question you posed namely, How did life start from protiens. I can answer all your questions but it's kind of pointless, because whatever I say, you will disregard it because it doesn't mesh with your BELIEF.

 

[hobelim]

And lastly I answered the question you posed namely, How did life start from protiens. I can answer all your questions but it's kind of pointless, because whatever I say, you will disregard it because it doesn't mesh with your BELIEF.

Bingo!


Some people are more interested in being right even if they are wrong and don't care about the truth because they have confused faith with obstinate stupidity.

 

[james bond]

. It's not making mistakes, but using outright fakery to match the findings with what your believe.

that indeed is the cornerstone of creationism ....

Any test for scientific validity is usually a test showing God instead of atheism.

.

Using this more complex experiment, I have shown that there is existence of intelligence and a designer. Your random chance of it being put together iby itself is negligible. Complexity in even the smallest and what we perceive to be simple life or objects means there is intelligence and design behind it. Not evolution. Ha ha.

there is only one known example of life so far recorded in the visible universe, all others are the example of the moonscape to the left, the random chance of Bonds example is in fact a sea of intangible conformity of meaningless debree, only in the single example is there true complexity that is not a constant unchanging form of design as an automobile but an everchanging and adapting process that itself is the reason for its existence as well as its origin - evolution. that has a Spiritual foundation.

.

You know that saying that man would have invented God if He didn't exist? I do not think that is the way it should have been stated. It should be man would have invented atheism if God did exist. The evidence is the so-called science of evolution. It is the expression of free will and free will is what God gave us in His perfection.

If one compares the moon to the Earth in the images you provided, then we see God's great works. The Earth and moon are complementary and the moon supports the Earth. God created the heavens and earth (universe or all that is above and all that is below) and he made our planet the centerpiece and the moon to help keep it in place. My evidence continues with how atheists try and make the vastness beyond the Earth as being greater than the Earth, i.e. it has alien life, somewhere else is life and intelligent life. They want to colonize Mars. It's better to appreciate God's great works and make our humble home a happy place and heaven on Earth. Take a deep breath and see what God is cooking. So beautiful and complex. It's wonderful.

 

[james bond]

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"

The person who has shown no proof is just look in the mirror. It's YOU. This is because science doesn't back up what the atheists claim. Evolution is a lie that has been told so many times over and over that people believe it. I pointed out the Piltdown Man. A whole generation believed it was the missing link. You still believe Lucy is evidence when I told you the facts. What about the Nebraska Man? It turned out to be a pig's tooth, not a human or even an ape's.

1, 2 and 3. Atheists are usually wrong and you're wrong about Adam and Eve's immediate ancestors not living for hundreds of years. The environment and the universe were different then, so people could live a long time. We already discussed this. They were more perfect. They were healthier than people after Noah's Flood. Remember, I pointed out the people of Pompeii who had perfect teeth? There is some recorded history of ancient people living around 300 years. This has nothing to do with Christianity, but it is in the historical record. You're only spouting what the atheist scientists have told you.

Did Ancient People Really Have Lifespans Longer Than 200 Years?

Will the Ark Encounter have exhibits of human longevity before the global flood? I hope it does. Would be disappointed if it did not address this. Noah was 500 when he started building the Ark. He completed it in 100 hundred years even though God gave him 120 years to do it.

We're just flitting from topic to topic which I have covered already and presented the evidence. You have presented nothing and keep insisting on evolution. You believe in aliens without one shred of evidence. You believe in macroevolution without one shred of evidence. You believe complex life can spring out of nothing or a primordial soup when your scientists have failed in creating the most basic of life, the protein molecule. You believe mutation has positive benefits. You think that lower levels of sedimentary rock contain older fossils than the upper levels without any proof whatsover. You believe the Cliffs of Dover took millions of years to form. Your so-called celeb scientists believe in multiverses, that the universe is primed for life, the universe can start from nothing. there are things such as dark matter and energy, God plays dice and other ridiculous notions. There is not one shred of evidence. You believe that GMO crops are good. I was talking with a pot smoker and he said he would prefer to smoke a hybrid plant than a GMO one. Why is that? Cause hybrids were naturally produced. It also goes to show that intelligent being had to interact to form these hybrid plants, even though they were interbred. It does not happen in the wild. Then your atheist scientists create a GMO version and try to pass it off as better and safe. You believe the universe is expanding and will continue to expand. This isn't true. A peer-reviewed paper has shown that the universe has an edge. Thus, there is a limit and end to the universe. There are no multiverses. One can't go back in time unless there is something else besides our present belief systems. Atheist scientists think that exploration of quantum physics can help us achieve this and show muti-dimensional reality. Yet, you do not understand the basics of the 4th dimension or spacetime. You believe in mutidimensions. There is a basic saying, "If it stinks, it's chemistry. If it crawls, it's biology. If it doesn't work, it's physics." I've added, "If it's wrong, it's evolution." It's no wonder you have not presented anything, but continue to believe that what I presented isn't true. It's true. The proof is in the pudding, but your evolution brain just cannot accept it.

Well like I said a million times before. Nothing to you actually means. Nothing I will accept. I have given you plenty of test using real life and what we can discern from the ground. The body of evidence is staggering litteraly covering all known sciences. Doesn't it botter you in the slightest, that altough you claim to have an open mind and you claim to adhere to the scientific method. Not a single source or explanation offered would be accepted by this scientific method. Furthermore you claim you know more about science then I do, yet all the things you say would give you an F in all introductionary science classes. Give me 1 test just 1 using the real world that I have no explanation for. As to lucy give me a source to your claim. As to Piltdown man. You are saying making mistakes invalidates all that we know. Let me tell you, like I did before. Piltdown man was accepted, and after it was found out a hoax, it was quickly and completly abandoned by all the scientific community. Like I said before, not a single argument Creationists use is ever completly abondened no matter how completly it is debunked. That alone is a TEST of its scientific validity.

Again, you do not reply to what was said. All you do is deny and spout unintelligent rhetoric and do not further the discussion. It's mind-numbing boring now. I realize that I can explain it to you, but I can not understand for you. It's not making mistakes, but using outright fakery to match the findings with what your believe. That has been the playbook of atheists and it appears to be your playbook, too. You just continue to deny all of the evidence for God. Any test for scientific validity is usually a test showing God instead of atheism.

Let's say we toss two coins. If it comes up two heads or two tails, I win. If it comes up one tail and one head, then you win. That's a simple experiment. Now increase the number of coins to four. Now fifty coins. It's still simple and we can figure out which results determine who won. Now let's take parts of an airplane. Let's say it's a small model plane and it has 350 parts. We toss that with the help of a big bucket and if it forms a plane, you win. It never forms a plane after a thousand tries. We can conclude that your scenario happening is negligible. The next day, I show you the same small model plane and it is put back together and all the parts are in the right place. You ask how did it happen and I say I put it back together. This means there was some intelligence involved in order to put it back together. Also, there was intelligence involved in creating the plane so that all of its parts can be taken apart and put back together. Using this more complex experiment, I have shown that there is existence of intelligence and a designer. Your random chance of it being put together iby itself is negligible. Complexity in even the smallest and what we perceive to be simple life or objects means there is intelligence and design behind it. Not evolution. Ha ha.

ntists to use God to explain when one could not explain something. Atheist usurped it from creationists when they were debating the Big Bang Theory. It's important to note that atheists and their scientists have no qualms about stealing from creation scientist theories or soultions and then refuse to accept their findings because it is based on the Bible, God or the supernatural.

Apperently you have trouble reading. The first self repeclating protien,wheren't like you claim "a plane" but lets stick to the analogy "a bolt" It also wasn't like you claim 1 bucket. But billions of buckets all thrown up simultaniosly, it also wasn't 1 day, but milions of days . Nore was it random, since in biochemistry molecules want to bond. So that destroys your entire premise but you do not care. Since that would debunk your entire argument. You are right this has gotten boring. The biggest lesson I've learned from this is how people like you think. You care nothing about the scientific process. You feel whatever article, myth, blurry movie, or Acient book, even what you think, carries just as much weight as for instance human life expectancy. Or known numbers of staff members it takes to take care of large groups of animals. Or current distribution of animals. Or the proven track record and predicting capability of dating methods, or genetics,etc,etc. You very rarely offer sources and when you do it's usually an article with a dubious authorship or something which has an easier non-magical explanation, nore is Creationism even in agreement amongst eachother,because I've found in the course of this argument, many, many different beliefs as what happened and why. Their is only one theory amongst scientist, evolution trough natural selection. Scientist disagree on perifial stuff around it, but not a single piece of evidence has shown up, challeging the basis to evolution. And there is a mountain of evidence supporting it. And lastly I answered the question you posed namely, How did life start from protiens. I can answer all your questions but it's kind of pointless, because whatever I say, you will disregard it because it doesn't mesh with your BELIEF.

You're probably correct in my having trouble reading your posts. Did you understand what I posted about amino acids and the protein molecule? Read some Duane Gish and he can explain it to you. If you are correct, then we should see life springing up everywhere. Where is the experiment to demonstrate, "The first self repeclating protien,wheren't like you claim "a plane" but lets stick to the analogy "a bolt" It also wasn't like you claim 1 bucket. But billions of buckets all thrown up simultaniosly, it also wasn't 1 day, but milions of days . Nore was it random, since in biochemistry molecules want to bond."? You already had 4.7 billion years according to evolution, but not one speck of life has been created. Not even a protein molecule. It goes to show that the fine-tuning theory of life is valid as I explained through the thought experiment with the 350-part model plane. It's not about a "bolt" or lightening. The bucket is just and empty vessel. It does not matter if you have billions of buckets. Nothing begats nothing. So you're wrong there. What we have are amino acids or the building blocks. From that, your billions of years of passing time leaves us with amino acids -- not protein nor the stuff of life. Read about the Miller-Urey experiment.

I have provided not just scientific evidence, but the greatest book in the world as the source. Yet, you continue to deprecate what I have provided because of your "faith" in the pseudoscience of evolution. Atheists are usually wrong. I do care about science and have an aptitude for it. Moreover, we'll have to see what the Ark Encounter holds. It should answer all you doubts and questions. I did not put up an argument against it. Your dating methods have to do with time and the layers are not about that. We have the fossil record, but it is not associated with a buildup over chronological time. It isn't evolution through natural selection, but creation through natural selection. Facts aren't just under evolution. We have Alfred Russel Wallace to thank and not Darwood. There is no mountain of evidence for evolution or you would have provided it in every post like I did with creationism in my posts. The only thing I remember you posting as evidence is your cut and paste job and I'm still waiting for you to explain it in your own words. I already provided a small sample of what you think is not the evidence shows. For example, the universal genetic code represents complexity and that is more evidence that an intelligent creator was behind it. Your evidence validates my points. And life did not evolve from proteins. Mature, perfect adult life was created. Proteins are the building blocks of life and if evolution were true, it would have evolved from that into a simple cell. We would see this happen all around, but none happens in outer space nor the nether regions. The amino acids are there, but the creation of proteins only happens within a cell. Another miracle of life provided by God. Did you understand this? The questions I have for you are more basic and along the lines of did you understand what I am saying? Did you understand what you are saying? Did you understand your copy and paste job?

Finally, you still appear to think in your bias that creation is not science. Creation IS science and science ends up backing it up. The mountain of evidence is on my side and I provided the evidence for it throughout this thread including my thought experiment.

 

[james bond]

And lastly I answered the question you posed namely, How did life start from protiens. I can answer all your questions but it's kind of pointless, because whatever I say, you will disregard it because it doesn't mesh with your BELIEF.

Bingo!


Some people are more interested in being right even if they are wrong and don't care about the truth because they have confused faith with obstinate stupidity.

An ad hominem attack does not provide a valid argument. So already you lost. One post and you have been extirpated. Ha ha and good day.

 

[BreezeWood]

Noah was 500 when he started building the Ark. He completed it in 100 hundred years even though God gave him 120 years to do it.

It's better to appreciate God's great works and make our humble home a happy place and heaven on Earth.

- even though God gave him 120 years to do it ...


no, it was to be accomplished before Noah's death, christian and Noah did not fail the Almighty as did moses the heritic.

when either the last of either expires, the Triumph of Good vs Evil those remaining will be the Final Judgement - the parable of Noah.

the Judgement was made by the Almighty beforehand before it expired and humanity was given a second chance.


to bad for you Bond it is not between creationist and atheism but between the true faith against the deceptive bible, rendered by the Final Judgement.

.

 

[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"

The person who has shown no proof is just look in the mirror. It's YOU. This is because science doesn't back up what the atheists claim. Evolution is a lie that has been told so many times over and over that people believe it. I pointed out the Piltdown Man. A whole generation believed it was the missing link. You still believe Lucy is evidence when I told you the facts. What about the Nebraska Man? It turned out to be a pig's tooth, not a human or even an ape's.

1, 2 and 3. Atheists are usually wrong and you're wrong about Adam and Eve's immediate ancestors not living for hundreds of years. The environment and the universe were different then, so people could live a long time. We already discussed this. They were more perfect. They were healthier than people after Noah's Flood. Remember, I pointed out the people of Pompeii who had perfect teeth? There is some recorded history of ancient people living around 300 years. This has nothing to do with Christianity, but it is in the historical record. You're only spouting what the atheist scientists have told you.

Did Ancient People Really Have Lifespans Longer Than 200 Years?

Will the Ark Encounter have exhibits of human longevity before the global flood? I hope it does. Would be disappointed if it did not address this. Noah was 500 when he started building the Ark. He completed it in 100 hundred years even though God gave him 120 years to do it.

We're just flitting from topic to topic which I have covered already and presented the evidence. You have presented nothing and keep insisting on evolution. You believe in aliens without one shred of evidence. You believe in macroevolution without one shred of evidence. You believe complex life can spring out of nothing or a primordial soup when your scientists have failed in creating the most basic of life, the protein molecule. You believe mutation has positive benefits. You think that lower levels of sedimentary rock contain older fossils than the upper levels without any proof whatsover. You believe the Cliffs of Dover took millions of years to form. Your so-called celeb scientists believe in multiverses, that the universe is primed for life, the universe can start from nothing. there are things such as dark matter and energy, God plays dice and other ridiculous notions. There is not one shred of evidence. You believe that GMO crops are good. I was talking with a pot smoker and he said he would prefer to smoke a hybrid plant than a GMO one. Why is that? Cause hybrids were naturally produced. It also goes to show that intelligent being had to interact to form these hybrid plants, even though they were interbred. It does not happen in the wild. Then your atheist scientists create a GMO version and try to pass it off as better and safe. You believe the universe is expanding and will continue to expand. This isn't true. A peer-reviewed paper has shown that the universe has an edge. Thus, there is a limit and end to the universe. There are no multiverses. One can't go back in time unless there is something else besides our present belief systems. Atheist scientists think that exploration of quantum physics can help us achieve this and show muti-dimensional reality. Yet, you do not understand the basics of the 4th dimension or spacetime. You believe in mutidimensions. There is a basic saying, "If it stinks, it's chemistry. If it crawls, it's biology. If it doesn't work, it's physics." I've added, "If it's wrong, it's evolution." It's no wonder you have not presented anything, but continue to believe that what I presented isn't true. It's true. The proof is in the pudding, but your evolution brain just cannot accept it.

Well like I said a million times before. Nothing to you actually means. Nothing I will accept. I have given you plenty of test using real life and what we can discern from the ground. The body of evidence is staggering litteraly covering all known sciences. Doesn't it botter you in the slightest, that altough you claim to have an open mind and you claim to adhere to the scientific method. Not a single source or explanation offered would be accepted by this scientific method. Furthermore you claim you know more about science then I do, yet all the things you say would give you an F in all introductionary science classes. Give me 1 test just 1 using the real world that I have no explanation for. As to lucy give me a source to your claim. As to Piltdown man. You are saying making mistakes invalidates all that we know. Let me tell you, like I did before. Piltdown man was accepted, and after it was found out a hoax, it was quickly and completly abandoned by all the scientific community. Like I said before, not a single argument Creationists use is ever completly abondened no matter how completly it is debunked. That alone is a TEST of its scientific validity.

Again, you do not reply to what was said. All you do is deny and spout unintelligent rhetoric and do not further the discussion. It's mind-numbing boring now. I realize that I can explain it to you, but I can not understand for you. It's not making mistakes, but using outright fakery to match the findings with what your believe. That has been the playbook of atheists and it appears to be your playbook, too. You just continue to deny all of the evidence for God. Any test for scientific validity is usually a test showing God instead of atheism.

Let's say we toss two coins. If it comes up two heads or two tails, I win. If it comes up one tail and one head, then you win. That's a simple experiment. Now increase the number of coins to four. Now fifty coins. It's still simple and we can figure out which results determine who won. Now let's take parts of an airplane. Let's say it's a small model plane and it has 350 parts. We toss that with the help of a big bucket and if it forms a plane, you win. It never forms a plane after a thousand tries. We can conclude that your scenario happening is negligible. The next day, I show you the same small model plane and it is put back together and all the parts are in the right place. You ask how did it happen and I say I put it back together. This means there was some intelligence involved in order to put it back together. Also, there was intelligence involved in creating the plane so that all of its parts can be taken apart and put back together. Using this more complex experiment, I have shown that there is existence of intelligence and a designer. Your random chance of it being put together iby itself is negligible. Complexity in even the smallest and what we perceive to be simple life or objects means there is intelligence and design behind it. Not evolution. Ha ha.

ntists to use God to explain when one could not explain something. Atheist usurped it from creationists when they were debating the Big Bang Theory. It's important to note that atheists and their scientists have no qualms about stealing from creation scientist theories or soultions and then refuse to accept their findings because it is based on the Bible, God or the supernatural.

Apperently you have trouble reading. The first self repeclating protien,wheren't like you claim "a plane" but lets stick to the analogy "a bolt" It also wasn't like you claim 1 bucket. But billions of buckets all thrown up simultaniosly, it also wasn't 1 day, but milions of days . Nore was it random, since in biochemistry molecules want to bond. So that destroys your entire premise but you do not care. Since that would debunk your entire argument. You are right this has gotten boring. The biggest lesson I've learned from this is how people like you think. You care nothing about the scientific process. You feel whatever article, myth, blurry movie, or Acient book, even what you think, carries just as much weight as for instance human life expectancy. Or known numbers of staff members it takes to take care of large groups of animals. Or current distribution of animals. Or the proven track record and predicting capability of dating methods, or genetics,etc,etc. You very rarely offer sources and when you do it's usually an article with a dubious authorship or something which has an easier non-magical explanation, nore is Creationism even in agreement amongst eachother,because I've found in the course of this argument, many, many different beliefs as what happened and why. Their is only one theory amongst scientist, evolution trough natural selection. Scientist disagree on perifial stuff around it, but not a single piece of evidence has shown up, challeging the basis to evolution. And there is a mountain of evidence supporting it. And lastly I answered the question you posed namely, How did life start from protiens. I can answer all your questions but it's kind of pointless, because whatever I say, you will disregard it because it doesn't mesh with your BELIEF.

You're probably correct in my having trouble reading your posts. Did you understand what I posted about amino acids and the protein molecule? Read some Duane Gish and he can explain it to you. If you are correct, then we should see life springing up everywhere. Where is the experiment to demonstrate, "The first self repeclating protien,wheren't like you claim "a plane" but lets stick to the analogy "a bolt" It also wasn't like you claim 1 bucket. But billions of buckets all thrown up simultaniosly, it also wasn't 1 day, but milions of days . Nore was it random, since in biochemistry molecules want to bond."? You already had 4.7 billion years according to evolution, but not one speck of life has been created. Not even a protein molecule. It goes to show that the fine-tuning theory of life is valid as I explained through the thought experiment with the 350-part model plane. It's not about a "bolt" or lightening. The bucket is just and empty vessel. It does not matter if you have billions of buckets. Nothing begats nothing. So you're wrong there. What we have are amino acids or the building blocks. From that, your billions of years of passing time leaves us with amino acids -- not protein nor the stuff of life. Read about the Miller-Urey experiment.

I have provided not just scientific evidence, but the greatest book in the world as the source. Yet, you continue to deprecate what I have provided because of your "faith" in the pseudoscience of evolution. Atheists are usually wrong. I do care about science and have an aptitude for it. Moreover, we'll have to see what the Ark Encounter holds. It should answer all you doubts and questions. I did not put up an argument against it. Your dating methods have to do with time and the layers are not about that. We have the fossil record, but it is not associated with a buildup over chronological time. It isn't evolution through natural selection, but creation through natural selection. Facts aren't just under evolution. We have Alfred Russel Wallace to thank and not Darwood. There is no mountain of evidence for evolution or you would have provided it in every post like I did with creationism in my posts. The only thing I remember you posting as evidence is your cut and paste job and I'm still waiting for you to explain it in your own words. I already provided a small sample of what you think is not the evidence shows. For example, the universal genetic code represents complexity and that is more evidence that an intelligent creator was behind it. Your evidence validates my points. And life did not evolve from proteins. Mature, perfect adult life was created. Proteins are the building blocks of life and if evolution were true, it would have evolved from that into a simple cell. We would see this happen all around, but none happens in outer space nor the nether regions. The amino acids are there, but the creation of proteins only happens within a cell. Another miracle of life provided by God. Did you understand this? The questions I have for you are more basic and along the lines of did you understand what I am saying? Did you understand what you are saying? Did you understand your copy and paste job?

Finally, you still appear to think in your bias that creation is not science. Creation IS science and science ends up backing it up. The mountain of evidence is on my side and I provided the evidence for it throughout this thread including my thought experiment.

check page 141 I did explain in my own words. Not only that my explanation of point 1 went beyond what was asked and provided, a test for the valadity of radiometric dating, a test for genetic similarities, a test of stratafication, a valadation that all work togheter and another transistional fossil. So when you say I don't understand my post. You are actually saying 'I don't read your posts.' I could say I'm suprised but I'm truly not. I've seen plenty of examples of your selective reading of what I say. You also make my point every time you refer to the bible as proof. First of how you read the bible is a real minority view. So trying to use the number of people who believe in the bible as a confermation for your views is false. Second of, trying to use the bible to confirm the bible is circular reasoning. Thirdly if you try to use the bible as proof. You have to able to proof that the bible text are unambigous and true. You can't even proof the English bible texts say the same as the original and if it was unambigious different interpretation by other Christians would be impossible. As to my bias; it's a bias shared by the entire scietific community. The reason for it because it doesn't hold itself up to peer review. If it did so many different hypotheses within Creationism wouldn't be possible. It's a bias held by most Christians and it's a bias shared by the judicial system in the U.S. So you might not like it,but your hypothesis has been rejected, thouroghly.

 

[forkup]

The person who has shown no proof is just look in the mirror. It's YOU. This is because science doesn't back up what the atheists claim. Evolution is a lie that has been told so many times over and over that people believe it. I pointed out the Piltdown Man. A whole generation believed it was the missing link. You still believe Lucy is evidence when I told you the facts. What about the Nebraska Man? It turned out to be a pig's tooth, not a human or even an ape's.

1, 2 and 3. Atheists are usually wrong and you're wrong about Adam and Eve's immediate ancestors not living for hundreds of years. The environment and the universe were different then, so people could live a long time. We already discussed this. They were more perfect. They were healthier than people after Noah's Flood. Remember, I pointed out the people of Pompeii who had perfect teeth? There is some recorded history of ancient people living around 300 years. This has nothing to do with Christianity, but it is in the historical record. You're only spouting what the atheist scientists have told you.

Did Ancient People Really Have Lifespans Longer Than 200 Years?

Will the Ark Encounter have exhibits of human longevity before the global flood? I hope it does. Would be disappointed if it did not address this. Noah was 500 when he started building the Ark. He completed it in 100 hundred years even though God gave him 120 years to do it.

We're just flitting from topic to topic which I have covered already and presented the evidence. You have presented nothing and keep insisting on evolution. You believe in aliens without one shred of evidence. You believe in macroevolution without one shred of evidence. You believe complex life can spring out of nothing or a primordial soup when your scientists have failed in creating the most basic of life, the protein molecule. You believe mutation has positive benefits. You think that lower levels of sedimentary rock contain older fossils than the upper levels without any proof whatsover. You believe the Cliffs of Dover took millions of years to form. Your so-called celeb scientists believe in multiverses, that the universe is primed for life, the universe can start from nothing. there are things such as dark matter and energy, God plays dice and other ridiculous notions. There is not one shred of evidence. You believe that GMO crops are good. I was talking with a pot smoker and he said he would prefer to smoke a hybrid plant than a GMO one. Why is that? Cause hybrids were naturally produced. It also goes to show that intelligent being had to interact to form these hybrid plants, even though they were interbred. It does not happen in the wild. Then your atheist scientists create a GMO version and try to pass it off as better and safe. You believe the universe is expanding and will continue to expand. This isn't true. A peer-reviewed paper has shown that the universe has an edge. Thus, there is a limit and end to the universe. There are no multiverses. One can't go back in time unless there is something else besides our present belief systems. Atheist scientists think that exploration of quantum physics can help us achieve this and show muti-dimensional reality. Yet, you do not understand the basics of the 4th dimension or spacetime. You believe in mutidimensions. There is a basic saying, "If it stinks, it's chemistry. If it crawls, it's biology. If it doesn't work, it's physics." I've added, "If it's wrong, it's evolution." It's no wonder you have not presented anything, but continue to believe that what I presented isn't true. It's true. The proof is in the pudding, but your evolution brain just cannot accept it.

Well like I said a million times before. Nothing to you actually means. Nothing I will accept. I have given you plenty of test using real life and what we can discern from the ground. The body of evidence is staggering litteraly covering all known sciences. Doesn't it botter you in the slightest, that altough you claim to have an open mind and you claim to adhere to the scientific method. Not a single source or explanation offered would be accepted by this scientific method. Furthermore you claim you know more about science then I do, yet all the things you say would give you an F in all introductionary science classes. Give me 1 test just 1 using the real world that I have no explanation for. As to lucy give me a source to your claim. As to Piltdown man. You are saying making mistakes invalidates all that we know. Let me tell you, like I did before. Piltdown man was accepted, and after it was found out a hoax, it was quickly and completly abandoned by all the scientific community. Like I said before, not a single argument Creationists use is ever completly abondened no matter how completly it is debunked. That alone is a TEST of its scientific validity.

Again, you do not reply to what was said. All you do is deny and spout unintelligent rhetoric and do not further the discussion. It's mind-numbing boring now. I realize that I can explain it to you, but I can not understand for you. It's not making mistakes, but using outright fakery to match the findings with what your believe. That has been the playbook of atheists and it appears to be your playbook, too. You just continue to deny all of the evidence for God. Any test for scientific validity is usually a test showing God instead of atheism.

Let's say we toss two coins. If it comes up two heads or two tails, I win. If it comes up one tail and one head, then you win. That's a simple experiment. Now increase the number of coins to four. Now fifty coins. It's still simple and we can figure out which results determine who won. Now let's take parts of an airplane. Let's say it's a small model plane and it has 350 parts. We toss that with the help of a big bucket and if it forms a plane, you win. It never forms a plane after a thousand tries. We can conclude that your scenario happening is negligible. The next day, I show you the same small model plane and it is put back together and all the parts are in the right place. You ask how did it happen and I say I put it back together. This means there was some intelligence involved in order to put it back together. Also, there was intelligence involved in creating the plane so that all of its parts can be taken apart and put back together. Using this more complex experiment, I have shown that there is existence of intelligence and a designer. Your random chance of it being put together iby itself is negligible. Complexity in even the smallest and what we perceive to be simple life or objects means there is intelligence and design behind it. Not evolution. Ha ha.

ntists to use God to explain when one could not explain something. Atheist usurped it from creationists when they were debating the Big Bang Theory. It's important to note that atheists and their scientists have no qualms about stealing from creation scientist theories or soultions and then refuse to accept their findings because it is based on the Bible, God or the supernatural.

Apperently you have trouble reading. The first self repeclating protien,wheren't like you claim "a plane" but lets stick to the analogy "a bolt" It also wasn't like you claim 1 bucket. But billions of buckets all thrown up simultaniosly, it also wasn't 1 day, but milions of days . Nore was it random, since in biochemistry molecules want to bond. So that destroys your entire premise but you do not care. Since that would debunk your entire argument. You are right this has gotten boring. The biggest lesson I've learned from this is how people like you think. You care nothing about the scientific process. You feel whatever article, myth, blurry movie, or Acient book, even what you think, carries just as much weight as for instance human life expectancy. Or known numbers of staff members it takes to take care of large groups of animals. Or current distribution of animals. Or the proven track record and predicting capability of dating methods, or genetics,etc,etc. You very rarely offer sources and when you do it's usually an article with a dubious authorship or something which has an easier non-magical explanation, nore is Creationism even in agreement amongst eachother,because I've found in the course of this argument, many, many different beliefs as what happened and why. Their is only one theory amongst scientist, evolution trough natural selection. Scientist disagree on perifial stuff around it, but not a single piece of evidence has shown up, challeging the basis to evolution. And there is a mountain of evidence supporting it. And lastly I answered the question you posed namely, How did life start from protiens. I can answer all your questions but it's kind of pointless, because whatever I say, you will disregard it because it doesn't mesh with your BELIEF.

You're probably correct in my having trouble reading your posts. Did you understand what I posted about amino acids and the protein molecule? Read some Duane Gish and he can explain it to you. If you are correct, then we should see life springing up everywhere. Where is the experiment to demonstrate, "The first self repeclating protien,wheren't like you claim "a plane" but lets stick to the analogy "a bolt" It also wasn't like you claim 1 bucket. But billions of buckets all thrown up simultaniosly, it also wasn't 1 day, but milions of days . Nore was it random, since in biochemistry molecules want to bond."? You already had 4.7 billion years according to evolution, but not one speck of life has been created. Not even a protein molecule. It goes to show that the fine-tuning theory of life is valid as I explained through the thought experiment with the 350-part model plane. It's not about a "bolt" or lightening. The bucket is just and empty vessel. It does not matter if you have billions of buckets. Nothing begats nothing. So you're wrong there. What we have are amino acids or the building blocks. From that, your billions of years of passing time leaves us with amino acids -- not protein nor the stuff of life. Read about the Miller-Urey experiment.

I have provided not just scientific evidence, but the greatest book in the world as the source. Yet, you continue to deprecate what I have provided because of your "faith" in the pseudoscience of evolution. Atheists are usually wrong. I do care about science and have an aptitude for it. Moreover, we'll have to see what the Ark Encounter holds. It should answer all you doubts and questions. I did not put up an argument against it. Your dating methods have to do with time and the layers are not about that. We have the fossil record, but it is not associated with a buildup over chronological time. It isn't evolution through natural selection, but creation through natural selection. Facts aren't just under evolution. We have Alfred Russel Wallace to thank and not Darwood. There is no mountain of evidence for evolution or you would have provided it in every post like I did with creationism in my posts. The only thing I remember you posting as evidence is your cut and paste job and I'm still waiting for you to explain it in your own words. I already provided a small sample of what you think is not the evidence shows. For example, the universal genetic code represents complexity and that is more evidence that an intelligent creator was behind it. Your evidence validates my points. And life did not evolve from proteins. Mature, perfect adult life was created. Proteins are the building blocks of life and if evolution were true, it would have evolved from that into a simple cell. We would see this happen all around, but none happens in outer space nor the nether regions. The amino acids are there, but the creation of proteins only happens within a cell. Another miracle of life provided by God. Did you understand this? The questions I have for you are more basic and along the lines of did you understand what I am saying? Did you understand what you are saying? Did you understand your copy and paste job?

Finally, you still appear to think in your bias that creation is not science. Creation IS science and science ends up backing it up. The mountain of evidence is on my side and I provided the evidence for it throughout this thread including my thought experiment.

check page 141 I did explain in my own words. Not only that my explanation of point 1 went beyond what was asked and provided, a test for the valadity of radiometric dating, a test for genetic similarities, a test of stratafication, a valadation that all work togheter and another transistional fossil. So when you say I don't understand my post. You are actually saying 'I don't read your posts.' I could say I'm suprised but I'm truly not. I've seen plenty of examples of your selective reading of what I say. You also make my point every time you refer to the bible as proof. First of how you read the bible is a real minority view. So trying to use the number of people who believe in the bible as a confermation for your views is false. Second of, trying to use the bible to confirm the bible is circular reasoning. Thirdly if you try to use the bible as proof. You have to able to proof that the bible text are unambigous and true. You can't even proof the English bible texts say the same as the original and if it was unambigious different interpretation by other Christians would be impossible. As to my bias; it's a bias shared by the entire scietific community. The reason for it because it doesn't hold itself up to peer review. If it did so many different hypotheses within Creationism wouldn't be possible. It's a bias held by most Christians and it's a bias shared by the judicial system in the U.S. So you might not like it,but your hypothesis has been rejected, thouroghly.

When you say you have an aptitude for science "what do you mean? You seem to not understand how the scientific method works. When I got my first chemistry lesson,my teacher explained it perfectly. It's very simple, "assume nothing". Something can never be 100 percent undeniably true, that's why "theory" is the highest degree of certainty in science. Facts are used to confirm a theory not the other way around. You START with in scientific terms, a theory namely, " the bible is litterral" and then you try to rearange the facts to confirm that theory, basicly reversing the process. You pick and choose what you think you can use and spin a hypotheses. That's why for you it's perfectly acceptable to use an article citing that there where 250 year old Chinese doctors with no more proof then the mere existence of that article. To you that's sufficient to be called proof and a fact. In science using a source like that would get you bood right of the stage.

 

[forkup]

Well like I said a million times before. Nothing to you actually means. Nothing I will accept. I have given you plenty of test using real life and what we can discern from the ground. The body of evidence is staggering litteraly covering all known sciences. Doesn't it botter you in the slightest, that altough you claim to have an open mind and you claim to adhere to the scientific method. Not a single source or explanation offered would be accepted by this scientific method. Furthermore you claim you know more about science then I do, yet all the things you say would give you an F in all introductionary science classes. Give me 1 test just 1 using the real world that I have no explanation for. As to lucy give me a source to your claim. As to Piltdown man. You are saying making mistakes invalidates all that we know. Let me tell you, like I did before. Piltdown man was accepted, and after it was found out a hoax, it was quickly and completly abandoned by all the scientific community. Like I said before, not a single argument Creationists use is ever completly abondened no matter how completly it is debunked. That alone is a TEST of its scientific validity.

Again, you do not reply to what was said. All you do is deny and spout unintelligent rhetoric and do not further the discussion. It's mind-numbing boring now. I realize that I can explain it to you, but I can not understand for you. It's not making mistakes, but using outright fakery to match the findings with what your believe. That has been the playbook of atheists and it appears to be your playbook, too. You just continue to deny all of the evidence for God. Any test for scientific validity is usually a test showing God instead of atheism.

Let's say we toss two coins. If it comes up two heads or two tails, I win. If it comes up one tail and one head, then you win. That's a simple experiment. Now increase the number of coins to four. Now fifty coins. It's still simple and we can figure out which results determine who won. Now let's take parts of an airplane. Let's say it's a small model plane and it has 350 parts. We toss that with the help of a big bucket and if it forms a plane, you win. It never forms a plane after a thousand tries. We can conclude that your scenario happening is negligible. The next day, I show you the same small model plane and it is put back together and all the parts are in the right place. You ask how did it happen and I say I put it back together. This means there was some intelligence involved in order to put it back together. Also, there was intelligence involved in creating the plane so that all of its parts can be taken apart and put back together. Using this more complex experiment, I have shown that there is existence of intelligence and a designer. Your random chance of it being put together iby itself is negligible. Complexity in even the smallest and what we perceive to be simple life or objects means there is intelligence and design behind it. Not evolution. Ha ha.

ntists to use God to explain when one could not explain something. Atheist usurped it from creationists when they were debating the Big Bang Theory. It's important to note that atheists and their scientists have no qualms about stealing from creation scientist theories or soultions and then refuse to accept their findings because it is based on the Bible, God or the supernatural.

Apperently you have trouble reading. The first self repeclating protien,wheren't like you claim "a plane" but lets stick to the analogy "a bolt" It also wasn't like you claim 1 bucket. But billions of buckets all thrown up simultaniosly, it also wasn't 1 day, but milions of days . Nore was it random, since in biochemistry molecules want to bond. So that destroys your entire premise but you do not care. Since that would debunk your entire argument. You are right this has gotten boring. The biggest lesson I've learned from this is how people like you think. You care nothing about the scientific process. You feel whatever article, myth, blurry movie, or Acient book, even what you think, carries just as much weight as for instance human life expectancy. Or known numbers of staff members it takes to take care of large groups of animals. Or current distribution of animals. Or the proven track record and predicting capability of dating methods, or genetics,etc,etc. You very rarely offer sources and when you do it's usually an article with a dubious authorship or something which has an easier non-magical explanation, nore is Creationism even in agreement amongst eachother,because I've found in the course of this argument, many, many different beliefs as what happened and why. Their is only one theory amongst scientist, evolution trough natural selection. Scientist disagree on perifial stuff around it, but not a single piece of evidence has shown up, challeging the basis to evolution. And there is a mountain of evidence supporting it. And lastly I answered the question you posed namely, How did life start from protiens. I can answer all your questions but it's kind of pointless, because whatever I say, you will disregard it because it doesn't mesh with your BELIEF.

You're probably correct in my having trouble reading your posts. Did you understand what I posted about amino acids and the protein molecule? Read some Duane Gish and he can explain it to you. If you are correct, then we should see life springing up everywhere. Where is the experiment to demonstrate, "The first self repeclating protien,wheren't like you claim "a plane" but lets stick to the analogy "a bolt" It also wasn't like you claim 1 bucket. But billions of buckets all thrown up simultaniosly, it also wasn't 1 day, but milions of days . Nore was it random, since in biochemistry molecules want to bond."? You already had 4.7 billion years according to evolution, but not one speck of life has been created. Not even a protein molecule. It goes to show that the fine-tuning theory of life is valid as I explained through the thought experiment with the 350-part model plane. It's not about a "bolt" or lightening. The bucket is just and empty vessel. It does not matter if you have billions of buckets. Nothing begats nothing. So you're wrong there. What we have are amino acids or the building blocks. From that, your billions of years of passing time leaves us with amino acids -- not protein nor the stuff of life. Read about the Miller-Urey experiment.

I have provided not just scientific evidence, but the greatest book in the world as the source. Yet, you continue to deprecate what I have provided because of your "faith" in the pseudoscience of evolution. Atheists are usually wrong. I do care about science and have an aptitude for it. Moreover, we'll have to see what the Ark Encounter holds. It should answer all you doubts and questions. I did not put up an argument against it. Your dating methods have to do with time and the layers are not about that. We have the fossil record, but it is not associated with a buildup over chronological time. It isn't evolution through natural selection, but creation through natural selection. Facts aren't just under evolution. We have Alfred Russel Wallace to thank and not Darwood. There is no mountain of evidence for evolution or you would have provided it in every post like I did with creationism in my posts. The only thing I remember you posting as evidence is your cut and paste job and I'm still waiting for you to explain it in your own words. I already provided a small sample of what you think is not the evidence shows. For example, the universal genetic code represents complexity and that is more evidence that an intelligent creator was behind it. Your evidence validates my points. And life did not evolve from proteins. Mature, perfect adult life was created. Proteins are the building blocks of life and if evolution were true, it would have evolved from that into a simple cell. We would see this happen all around, but none happens in outer space nor the nether regions. The amino acids are there, but the creation of proteins only happens within a cell. Another miracle of life provided by God. Did you understand this? The questions I have for you are more basic and along the lines of did you understand what I am saying? Did you understand what you are saying? Did you understand your copy and paste job?

Finally, you still appear to think in your bias that creation is not science. Creation IS science and science ends up backing it up. The mountain of evidence is on my side and I provided the evidence for it throughout this thread including my thought experiment.

check page 141 I did explain in my own words. Not only that my explanation of point 1 went beyond what was asked and provided, a test for the valadity of radiometric dating, a test for genetic similarities, a test of stratafication, a valadation that all work togheter and another transistional fossil. So when you say I don't understand my post. You are actually saying 'I don't read your posts.' I could say I'm suprised but I'm truly not. I've seen plenty of examples of your selective reading of what I say. You also make my point every time you refer to the bible as proof. First of how you read the bible is a real minority view. So trying to use the number of people who believe in the bible as a confermation for your views is false. Second of, trying to use the bible to confirm the bible is circular reasoning. Thirdly if you try to use the bible as proof. You have to able to proof that the bible text are unambigous and true. You can't even proof the English bible texts say the same as the original and if it was unambigious different interpretation by other Christians would be impossible. As to my bias; it's a bias shared by the entire scietific community. The reason for it because it doesn't hold itself up to peer review. If it did so many different hypotheses within Creationism wouldn't be possible. It's a bias held by most Christians and it's a bias shared by the judicial system in the U.S. So you might not like it,but your hypothesis has been rejected, thouroghly.

When you say you have an aptitude for science "what do you mean? You seem to not understand how the scientific method works. When I got my first chemistry lesson,my teacher explained it perfectly. It's very simple, "assume nothing". Something can never be 100 percent undeniably true, that's why "theory" is the highest degree of certainty in science. Facts are used to confirm a theory not the other way around. You START with in scientific terms, a theory namely, " the bible is litterral" and then you try to rearange the facts to confirm that theory, basicly reversing the process. You pick and choose what you think you can use and spin a hypotheses. That's why for you it's perfectly acceptable to use an article citing that there where 250 year old Chinese doctors with no more proof then the mere existence of that article. To you that's sufficient to be called proof and a fact. In science using a source like that would get you bood right of the stage.

Lets play a little game. First life: The search for the first replicator This article wich I encourage you to read carefully and closely is how the scientific method works. It describes the search for the first self replicating molecules. I want you to note it's a story not just about success but also about failure it litterally names every single problem they had and even admits the problem might be unprovable, unlike Creationism. It describes how scientists start with an assumption and then figure how to test it, unlike Creatonism. When they give a fact, it very often gives a source, unlike creationism. It also describes when something doesn't work, that fact isn't ignored, alternatives immediatly start to be explored, unlike Creationism. And when something hasn't been tested yet, the simple fact that it might be possible is at no point confused with the statement it happened, unlike Creationism. Their is one thing this article doesn't illustrate namely when something is disproven the idea is abandoned so you won't have to answer that one.The game is the following, if you can debunk all of the statements I posted above Creationism can be considered a science. But you will have to give examples. And I also would like some honesty from you. If they are able to make this self replicating molecule, would that in any way change your mind?

 

[LittleNipper]

Again, you do not reply to what was said. All you do is deny and spout unintelligent rhetoric and do not further the discussion. It's mind-numbing boring now. I realize that I can explain it to you, but I can not understand for you. It's not making mistakes, but using outright fakery to match the findings with what your believe. That has been the playbook of atheists and it appears to be your playbook, too. You just continue to deny all of the evidence for God. Any test for scientific validity is usually a test showing God instead of atheism.

Let's say we toss two coins. If it comes up two heads or two tails, I win. If it comes up one tail and one head, then you win. That's a simple experiment. Now increase the number of coins to four. Now fifty coins. It's still simple and we can figure out which results determine who won. Now let's take parts of an airplane. Let's say it's a small model plane and it has 350 parts. We toss that with the help of a big bucket and if it forms a plane, you win. It never forms a plane after a thousand tries. We can conclude that your scenario happening is negligible. The next day, I show you the same small model plane and it is put back together and all the parts are in the right place. You ask how did it happen and I say I put it back together. This means there was some intelligence involved in order to put it back together. Also, there was intelligence involved in creating the plane so that all of its parts can be taken apart and put back together. Using this more complex experiment, I have shown that there is existence of intelligence and a designer. Your random chance of it being put together iby itself is negligible. Complexity in even the smallest and what we perceive to be simple life or objects means there is intelligence and design behind it. Not evolution. Ha ha.

ntists to use God to explain when one could not explain something. Atheist usurped it from creationists when they were debating the Big Bang Theory. It's important to note that atheists and their scientists have no qualms about stealing from creation scientist theories or soultions and then refuse to accept their findings because it is based on the Bible, God or the supernatural.

Apperently you have trouble reading. The first self repeclating protien,wheren't like you claim "a plane" but lets stick to the analogy "a bolt" It also wasn't like you claim 1 bucket. But billions of buckets all thrown up simultaniosly, it also wasn't 1 day, but milions of days . Nore was it random, since in biochemistry molecules want to bond. So that destroys your entire premise but you do not care. Since that would debunk your entire argument. You are right this has gotten boring. The biggest lesson I've learned from this is how people like you think. You care nothing about the scientific process. You feel whatever article, myth, blurry movie, or Acient book, even what you think, carries just as much weight as for instance human life expectancy. Or known numbers of staff members it takes to take care of large groups of animals. Or current distribution of animals. Or the proven track record and predicting capability of dating methods, or genetics,etc,etc. You very rarely offer sources and when you do it's usually an article with a dubious authorship or something which has an easier non-magical explanation, nore is Creationism even in agreement amongst eachother,because I've found in the course of this argument, many, many different beliefs as what happened and why. Their is only one theory amongst scientist, evolution trough natural selection. Scientist disagree on perifial stuff around it, but not a single piece of evidence has shown up, challeging the basis to evolution. And there is a mountain of evidence supporting it. And lastly I answered the question you posed namely, How did life start from protiens. I can answer all your questions but it's kind of pointless, because whatever I say, you will disregard it because it doesn't mesh with your BELIEF.

You're probably correct in my having trouble reading your posts. Did you understand what I posted about amino acids and the protein molecule? Read some Duane Gish and he can explain it to you. If you are correct, then we should see life springing up everywhere. Where is the experiment to demonstrate, "The first self repeclating protien,wheren't like you claim "a plane" but lets stick to the analogy "a bolt" It also wasn't like you claim 1 bucket. But billions of buckets all thrown up simultaniosly, it also wasn't 1 day, but milions of days . Nore was it random, since in biochemistry molecules want to bond."? You already had 4.7 billion years according to evolution, but not one speck of life has been created. Not even a protein molecule. It goes to show that the fine-tuning theory of life is valid as I explained through the thought experiment with the 350-part model plane. It's not about a "bolt" or lightening. The bucket is just and empty vessel. It does not matter if you have billions of buckets. Nothing begats nothing. So you're wrong there. What we have are amino acids or the building blocks. From that, your billions of years of passing time leaves us with amino acids -- not protein nor the stuff of life. Read about the Miller-Urey experiment.

I have provided not just scientific evidence, but the greatest book in the world as the source. Yet, you continue to deprecate what I have provided because of your "faith" in the pseudoscience of evolution. Atheists are usually wrong. I do care about science and have an aptitude for it. Moreover, we'll have to see what the Ark Encounter holds. It should answer all you doubts and questions. I did not put up an argument against it. Your dating methods have to do with time and the layers are not about that. We have the fossil record, but it is not associated with a buildup over chronological time. It isn't evolution through natural selection, but creation through natural selection. Facts aren't just under evolution. We have Alfred Russel Wallace to thank and not Darwood. There is no mountain of evidence for evolution or you would have provided it in every post like I did with creationism in my posts. The only thing I remember you posting as evidence is your cut and paste job and I'm still waiting for you to explain it in your own words. I already provided a small sample of what you think is not the evidence shows. For example, the universal genetic code represents complexity and that is more evidence that an intelligent creator was behind it. Your evidence validates my points. And life did not evolve from proteins. Mature, perfect adult life was created. Proteins are the building blocks of life and if evolution were true, it would have evolved from that into a simple cell. We would see this happen all around, but none happens in outer space nor the nether regions. The amino acids are there, but the creation of proteins only happens within a cell. Another miracle of life provided by God. Did you understand this? The questions I have for you are more basic and along the lines of did you understand what I am saying? Did you understand what you are saying? Did you understand your copy and paste job?

Finally, you still appear to think in your bias that creation is not science. Creation IS science and science ends up backing it up. The mountain of evidence is on my side and I provided the evidence for it throughout this thread including my thought experiment.

check page 141 I did explain in my own words. Not only that my explanation of point 1 went beyond what was asked and provided, a test for the valadity of radiometric dating, a test for genetic similarities, a test of stratafication, a valadation that all work togheter and another transistional fossil. So when you say I don't understand my post. You are actually saying 'I don't read your posts.' I could say I'm suprised but I'm truly not. I've seen plenty of examples of your selective reading of what I say. You also make my point every time you refer to the bible as proof. First of how you read the bible is a real minority view. So trying to use the number of people who believe in the bible as a confermation for your views is false. Second of, trying to use the bible to confirm the bible is circular reasoning. Thirdly if you try to use the bible as proof. You have to able to proof that the bible text are unambigous and true. You can't even proof the English bible texts say the same as the original and if it was unambigious different interpretation by other Christians would be impossible. As to my bias; it's a bias shared by the entire scietific community. The reason for it because it doesn't hold itself up to peer review. If it did so many different hypotheses within Creationism wouldn't be possible. It's a bias held by most Christians and it's a bias shared by the judicial system in the U.S. So you might not like it,but your hypothesis has been rejected, thouroghly.

When you say you have an aptitude for science "what do you mean? You seem to not understand how the scientific method works. When I got my first chemistry lesson,my teacher explained it perfectly. It's very simple, "assume nothing". Something can never be 100 percent undeniably true, that's why "theory" is the highest degree of certainty in science. Facts are used to confirm a theory not the other way around. You START with in scientific terms, a theory namely, " the bible is litterral" and then you try to rearange the facts to confirm that theory, basicly reversing the process. You pick and choose what you think you can use and spin a hypotheses. That's why for you it's perfectly acceptable to use an article citing that there where 250 year old Chinese doctors with no more proof then the mere existence of that article. To you that's sufficient to be called proof and a fact. In science using a source like that would get you bood right of the stage.

Lets play a little game. First life: The search for the first replicator This article wich I encourage you to read carefully and closely is how the scientific method works. It describes the search for the first self replicating molecules. I want you to note it's a story not just about success but also about failure it litterally names every single problem they had and even admits the problem might be unprovable, unlike Creationism. It describes how scientists start with an assumption and then figure how to test it, unlike Creatonism. When they give a fact, it very often gives a source, unlike creationism. It also describes when something doesn't work, that fact isn't ignored, alternatives immediatly start to be explored, unlike Creationism. And when something hasn't been tested yet, the simple fact that it might be possible is at no point confused with the statement it happened, unlike Creationism. Their is one thing this article doesn't illustrate namely when something is disproven the idea is abandoned so you won't have to answer that one.The game is the following, if you can debunk all of the statements I posted above Creationism can be considered a science. But you will have to give examples. And I also would like some honesty from you. If they are able to make this self replicating molecule, would that in any way change your mind?

Eolution when defined as oe species slowly metamorphasising

 

[LittleNipper]

Evolutionist Michael Denton wrote concerning Darwin:

His general theory that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe (1985, p. 77).