If God doesn't exist...

[BreezeWood]

.
the composite universe, maybe that will help this time otherwise, you are simply brain dead. -


I am not a pantheist, mortal beings haven't a free pass to the Everlasting -

and what does gender have to do with pantheism .... your choice of Him in regards to the Almighty is lacking and disrespectful .... but then you are a republican which does explains many of your missing gaps.

.

"the composite universe, maybe that will help this time otherwise, you are simply brain dead. -"

You can run...but you can't hide.



Sooooo.......where did the material, that comprises what we call our universe, come from?

How about you simply admit that you have no idea, but fear the possibility that has been suggested, and destroys your worldview?

That would be far more courageous than the smoke and mirrors you've been trying to advance.


Or...you may pin the tail on yourself.

.

that comprises what we call our universe

from the previous cycle - all existence in combination

but in the sake of curiosity I might ask what was the material at the moment of Singularity and the universe ....

and what does gender have to do with pantheism

the question you may need an answer for first is - where did you come from ...

you refuse to respond to the answers or questions in an intelligible way simply verifying your lack of comprehension ... nothing anyone can do about that.

.

So we can stipulate that the source, the origin, the provenance of the matter that makes up our universe is of such a nature that even speculating on same causes you palpable fear.



Excellent.

.

So we can stipulate

So we can stipulate ...

I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form.

I have given you my answer: from the previous cycle - all existence in combination as the origin of matter in the visible universe, a constructive comment from you is your choice ....

I am not a pantheist, mortal beings haven't a free pass to the Everlasting -

your choice of Him in regards to the Almighty is lacking and disrespectful .... but then you are a republican which does explains many of your missing gaps.

my response to you unlike yours to me has not been lacking.

.

"I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form."

I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form."




Of course when your and intransigence is revealed, you may attempt to change he subject.

As you just attempted.

We both know you won't even try to find any such pronouncements on my part, as they don't exist.



I have simply proven that you

a. know that the universe exists

b. it is made of matter and energy

c. the matter and energy must have come into existence at some point.

d. are afraid to provide any suggestion known to account for same.

e. and now you've become even more dishonest and petulant due to my having shown the above to be true.


And I love every minute of your discomfort.



Now....calm down, and remember.... I'm just like you.....just smarter and better looking.

.

Of course when your and intransigence is revealed, you may attempt to change he subject.

... [sic]


you simply are void of any dialog concerning the subject matter ... grow up PC.

- or better, get a life.

.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"the composite universe, maybe that will help this time otherwise, you are simply brain dead. -"

You can run...but you can't hide.



Sooooo.......where did the material, that comprises what we call our universe, come from?

How about you simply admit that you have no idea, but fear the possibility that has been suggested, and destroys your worldview?

That would be far more courageous than the smoke and mirrors you've been trying to advance.


Or...you may pin the tail on yourself.

.

that comprises what we call our universe

from the previous cycle - all existence in combination

but in the sake of curiosity I might ask what was the material at the moment of Singularity and the universe ....

and what does gender have to do with pantheism

the question you may need an answer for first is - where did you come from ...

you refuse to respond to the answers or questions in an intelligible way simply verifying your lack of comprehension ... nothing anyone can do about that.

.

So we can stipulate that the source, the origin, the provenance of the matter that makes up our universe is of such a nature that even speculating on same causes you palpable fear.



Excellent.

.

So we can stipulate

So we can stipulate ...

I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form.

I have given you my answer: from the previous cycle - all existence in combination as the origin of matter in the visible universe, a constructive comment from you is your choice ....

I am not a pantheist, mortal beings haven't a free pass to the Everlasting -

your choice of Him in regards to the Almighty is lacking and disrespectful .... but then you are a republican which does explains many of your missing gaps.

my response to you unlike yours to me has not been lacking.

.

"I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form."

I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form."




Of course when your and intransigence is revealed, you may attempt to change he subject.

As you just attempted.

We both know you won't even try to find any such pronouncements on my part, as they don't exist.



I have simply proven that you

a. know that the universe exists

b. it is made of matter and energy

c. the matter and energy must have come into existence at some point.

d. are afraid to provide any suggestion known to account for same.

e. and now you've become even more dishonest and petulant due to my having shown the above to be true.


And I love every minute of your discomfort.



Now....calm down, and remember.... I'm just like you.....just smarter and better looking.

.

Of course when your and intransigence is revealed, you may attempt to change he subject.

... [sic]


you simply are void of any dialog concerning the subject matter ... grow up PC.

- or better, get a life.

.

Is this an admission that you fear conjecturing on the origin of the matter and energy that make up the universe?

Excellent.

 

[sjay]

.
I answered your question - all existence in combination ...

your response is oxymoronic.


I have one for you, do you refute the Everlasting ?

.

".....all existence in combination ..."
A meaningless words salad.



Where did the material that has become the universe.....come from....
Before it's 'existence'.

Where from?

.

When we speak of God's attributes, we are talking about those characteristics that helps us to understand who He truly is. That which follows is a thorough, yet incomplete list and summary of His attributes.

When we speak of God's attributes, we are talking about those characteristics that helps us to understand who They truly are. That which follows is a thorough, yet incomplete list and summary of Their attributes.

I fixed that for you - are your language skills the same reason for your idolatry, just wondering.

A meaningless words salad.

Where did the material that has become the universe.....come from....
Before it's 'existence'.

Before it's 'existence'

since you did not respond to my previous post accordingly the simplest next step would be to consider it ignorance but in the sake of curiosity I might ask what was the material at the moment of Singularity and the universe ....

.

Perhaps you missed this....

...where did the material that makes up our universe come from?

.

...where did the material that makes up our universe come from?

the composite universe, maybe that will help this time otherwise, you are simply brain dead. -

Unlike you, I am not a pantheist....so, clearly, you fixed nothing.
You simply tried to add confusion, which seems to be the hallmark of your posts.

I am not a pantheist, mortal beings haven't a free pass to the Everlasting -

and what does gender have to do with pantheism .... your choice of Him in regards to the Almighty is lacking and disrespectful .... but then you are a republican which does explains many of your missing gaps.

.

"the composite universe, maybe that will help this time otherwise, you are simply brain dead. -"

You can run...but you can't hide.



Sooooo.......where did the material, that comprises what we call our universe, come from?

How about you simply admit that you have no idea, but fear the possibility that has been suggested, and destroys your worldview?

That would be far more courageous than the smoke and mirrors you've been trying to advance.


Or...you may pin the tail on yourself.

It can't be proven there is a god or gods so at best it's a 50/50 proposition.Also how come no modern day miracles, the old time miracles were nothing more than hocus pocus,water into wine,parting of the red sea,rising from the dead etc. yeah right.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
the question you may need an answer for first is - where did you come from ...

you refuse to respond to the answers or questions in an intelligible way simply verifying your lack of comprehension ... nothing anyone can do about that.

.

So we can stipulate that the source, the origin, the provenance of the matter that makes up our universe is of such a nature that even speculating on same causes you palpable fear.



Excellent.

.

So we can stipulate

So we can stipulate ...

I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form.

I have given you my answer: from the previous cycle - all existence in combination as the origin of matter in the visible universe, a constructive comment from you is your choice ....

I am not a pantheist, mortal beings haven't a free pass to the Everlasting -

your choice of Him in regards to the Almighty is lacking and disrespectful .... but then you are a republican which does explains many of your missing gaps.

my response to you unlike yours to me has not been lacking.

.

"I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form."

I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form."




Of course when your and intransigence is revealed, you may attempt to change he subject.

As you just attempted.

We both know you won't even try to find any such pronouncements on my part, as they don't exist.



I have simply proven that you

a. know that the universe exists

b. it is made of matter and energy

c. the matter and energy must have come into existence at some point.

d. are afraid to provide any suggestion known to account for same.

e. and now you've become even more dishonest and petulant due to my having shown the above to be true.


And I love every minute of your discomfort.



Now....calm down, and remember.... I'm just like you.....just smarter and better looking.

.

Of course when your and intransigence is revealed, you may attempt to change he subject.

... [sic]


you simply are void of any dialog concerning the subject matter ... grow up PC.

- or better, get a life.

.

Is this an admission that you fear conjecturing on the origin of the matter and energy that make up the universe?

Excellent.

.

Is this an admission that you fear conjecturing on the origin of the matter and energy that make up the universe?

no, it's about your inability to respond to an answer ... from the previous cycle - all existence in combination.

.

 

[BreezeWood]

".....all existence in combination ..."
A meaningless words salad.



Where did the material that has become the universe.....come from....
Before it's 'existence'.

Where from?

.

When we speak of God's attributes, we are talking about those characteristics that helps us to understand who He truly is. That which follows is a thorough, yet incomplete list and summary of His attributes.

When we speak of God's attributes, we are talking about those characteristics that helps us to understand who They truly are. That which follows is a thorough, yet incomplete list and summary of Their attributes.

I fixed that for you - are your language skills the same reason for your idolatry, just wondering.

A meaningless words salad.

Where did the material that has become the universe.....come from....
Before it's 'existence'.

Before it's 'existence'

since you did not respond to my previous post accordingly the simplest next step would be to consider it ignorance but in the sake of curiosity I might ask what was the material at the moment of Singularity and the universe ....

.

Perhaps you missed this....

...where did the material that makes up our universe come from?

.

...where did the material that makes up our universe come from?

the composite universe, maybe that will help this time otherwise, you are simply brain dead. -

Unlike you, I am not a pantheist....so, clearly, you fixed nothing.
You simply tried to add confusion, which seems to be the hallmark of your posts.

I am not a pantheist, mortal beings haven't a free pass to the Everlasting -

and what does gender have to do with pantheism .... your choice of Him in regards to the Almighty is lacking and disrespectful .... but then you are a republican which does explains many of your missing gaps.

.

"the composite universe, maybe that will help this time otherwise, you are simply brain dead. -"

You can run...but you can't hide.



Sooooo.......where did the material, that comprises what we call our universe, come from?

How about you simply admit that you have no idea, but fear the possibility that has been suggested, and destroys your worldview?

That would be far more courageous than the smoke and mirrors you've been trying to advance.


Or...you may pin the tail on yourself.

It can't be proven there is a god or gods so at best it's a 50/50 proposition.Also how come no modern day miracles, the old time miracles were nothing more than hocus pocus,water into wine,parting of the red sea,rising from the dead etc. yeah right.

.

Also how come no modern day miracles

the injustice of the crucifiction has not been atoned for, those in charge then are yet in charge today.

.

 

[Lutroo]

what kick started the universe?

Gravity.

Gravity, as well as time and space are part of the fabric of the universe. Gravity did not exist before the universe was formed. At least according Einstein.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So we can stipulate that the source, the origin, the provenance of the matter that makes up our universe is of such a nature that even speculating on same causes you palpable fear.



Excellent.

.

So we can stipulate

So we can stipulate ...

I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form.

I have given you my answer: from the previous cycle - all existence in combination as the origin of matter in the visible universe, a constructive comment from you is your choice ....

I am not a pantheist, mortal beings haven't a free pass to the Everlasting -

your choice of Him in regards to the Almighty is lacking and disrespectful .... but then you are a republican which does explains many of your missing gaps.

my response to you unlike yours to me has not been lacking.

.

"I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form."

I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form."




Of course when your and intransigence is revealed, you may attempt to change he subject.

As you just attempted.

We both know you won't even try to find any such pronouncements on my part, as they don't exist.



I have simply proven that you

a. know that the universe exists

b. it is made of matter and energy

c. the matter and energy must have come into existence at some point.

d. are afraid to provide any suggestion known to account for same.

e. and now you've become even more dishonest and petulant due to my having shown the above to be true.


And I love every minute of your discomfort.



Now....calm down, and remember.... I'm just like you.....just smarter and better looking.

.

Of course when your and intransigence is revealed, you may attempt to change he subject.

... [sic]


you simply are void of any dialog concerning the subject matter ... grow up PC.

- or better, get a life.

.

Is this an admission that you fear conjecturing on the origin of the matter and energy that make up the universe?

Excellent.

.

Is this an admission that you fear conjecturing on the origin of the matter and energy that make up the universe?

no, it's about your inability to respond to an answer ... from the previous cycle - all existence in combination.

.

Existence
a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence
Definition of EXISTENCE


From????

 

[forkup]

Who still thinks humans came from apes?

It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists. They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.

Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.

 

[Lutroo]

Who still thinks humans came from apes?

It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists. They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.

Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.

Those small changes are simply the expression of genetic traits that already exist. The big changes have never been observed to happen. Ever hear about what happens when you push selective breeding too far? The critter loses it's genetic diversity, and is sickly or malformed. You can only push it so far, then you run into problems. Macro-evolution has never been observed, and current scientific thinking shows that it is probably impossible. There is no way that DNA can add new information, which is required for the creation of new species.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
So we can stipulate ...

I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form.

I have given you my answer: from the previous cycle - all existence in combination as the origin of matter in the visible universe, a constructive comment from you is your choice ....




my response to you unlike yours to me has not been lacking.

.

"I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form."

I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form."




Of course when your and intransigence is revealed, you may attempt to change he subject.

As you just attempted.

We both know you won't even try to find any such pronouncements on my part, as they don't exist.



I have simply proven that you

a. know that the universe exists

b. it is made of matter and energy

c. the matter and energy must have come into existence at some point.

d. are afraid to provide any suggestion known to account for same.

e. and now you've become even more dishonest and petulant due to my having shown the above to be true.


And I love every minute of your discomfort.



Now....calm down, and remember.... I'm just like you.....just smarter and better looking.

.

Of course when your and intransigence is revealed, you may attempt to change he subject.

... [sic]


you simply are void of any dialog concerning the subject matter ... grow up PC.

- or better, get a life.

.

Is this an admission that you fear conjecturing on the origin of the matter and energy that make up the universe?

Excellent.

.

Is this an admission that you fear conjecturing on the origin of the matter and energy that make up the universe?

no, it's about your inability to respond to an answer ... from the previous cycle - all existence in combination.

.

Existence
a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence
Definition of EXISTENCE


From????

.

Existence
a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence

a : the state or fact of having being - especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence


PC, only you would have chosen 2a as your definition for existence ...


especially independently of human consciousness

just how would Webster know that ?



and as contrasted with nonexistence

but in the sake of curiosity I might ask what was the material at the moment of Singularity and the universe ....

what I have said all along is the lack of material is not a state of non existence, which does not exist unless it is the universe that does not exist when the Singularity at that moment resides in the Cosmos.

.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form."

I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form."




Of course when your and intransigence is revealed, you may attempt to change he subject.

As you just attempted.

We both know you won't even try to find any such pronouncements on my part, as they don't exist.



I have simply proven that you

a. know that the universe exists

b. it is made of matter and energy

c. the matter and energy must have come into existence at some point.

d. are afraid to provide any suggestion known to account for same.

e. and now you've become even more dishonest and petulant due to my having shown the above to be true.


And I love every minute of your discomfort.



Now....calm down, and remember.... I'm just like you.....just smarter and better looking.

.

Of course when your and intransigence is revealed, you may attempt to change he subject.

... [sic]


you simply are void of any dialog concerning the subject matter ... grow up PC.

- or better, get a life.

.

Is this an admission that you fear conjecturing on the origin of the matter and energy that make up the universe?

Excellent.

.

Is this an admission that you fear conjecturing on the origin of the matter and energy that make up the universe?

no, it's about your inability to respond to an answer ... from the previous cycle - all existence in combination.

.

Existence
a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence
Definition of EXISTENCE


From????

.

Existence
a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence

a : the state or fact of having being - especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence


PC, only you would have chosen 2a as your definition for existence ...


especially independently of human consciousness

just how would Webster know that ?



and as contrasted with nonexistence

but in the sake of curiosity I might ask what was the material at the moment of Singularity and the universe ....

what I have said all along is the lack of material is not a state of non existence, which does not exist unless it is the universe that does not exist when the Singularity at that moment resides in the Cosmos.

.

Gee.....I thought you came back to explain the source of the matter and energy that makes up our universe.


"....the lack of material is not a state of non existence,....."
As believable as the rumor that the Tooth Fairy was caught with a bag of teeth.

 

[forkup]

Who still thinks humans came from apes?

It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists. They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.

Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.

Those small changes are simply the expression of genetic traits that already exist. The big changes have never been observed to happen. Ever hear about what happens when you push selective breeding too far? The critter loses it's genetic diversity, and is sickly or malformed. You can only push it so far, then you run into problems. Macro-evolution has never been observed, and current scientific thinking shows that it is probably impossible. There is no way that DNA can add new information, which is required for the creation of new species.

Lol really. When you say never been observed you fail to consider the entire fossil record, when you say never been observed you forget that you can litterally trace the genetic commanalities between species effectivly visualise when species diverged. When you say never been oberved you fail to consider that these things can be used to predict where you will find transitional fossils. So when you say never been observed you actually say I don't want to observe it. And when you say experts, you are actually saying people who do not publish anything. And this whole selective breeding is another joke. First of, when you claim there was only 1 male and female to start with, that argument puts forth a big problem for you, the same can be said for the flood story. And I'll ask the same to you that I asked of James. How do you propose that macro, micro evolution works? Is there 2 sets of DNA, 1 that changes 1 that doesn't. Or does DNA stop changing after a certain amount of cycles? That's the only way you can have micro changes, but not macro changes. Macro changes are just a whole lot of micro changes.

 

[Lutroo]

Who still thinks humans came from apes?

It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists. They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.

Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.

Those small changes are simply the expression of genetic traits that already exist. The big changes have never been observed to happen. Ever hear about what happens when you push selective breeding too far? The critter loses it's genetic diversity, and is sickly or malformed. You can only push it so far, then you run into problems. Macro-evolution has never been observed, and current scientific thinking shows that it is probably impossible. There is no way that DNA can add new information, which is required for the creation of new species.

Lol really. When you say never been observed you fail to consider the entire fossil record, when you say never been observed you forget that you can litterally trace the genetic commanalities between species effectivly visualise when species diverged. When you say never been oberved you fail to consider that these things can be used to predict where you will find transitional fossils. So when you say never been observed you actually say I don't want to observe it. And when you say experts, you are actually saying people who do not publish anything. And this whole selective breeding is another joke. First of, when you claim there was only 1 male and female to start with, that argument puts forth a big problem for you, the same can be said for the flood story. And I'll ask the same to you that I asked of James. How do you propose that macro, micro evolution works? Is there 2 sets of DNA, 1 that changes 1 that doesn't. Or does DNA stop changing after a certain amount of cycles? That's the only way you can have micro changes, but not macro changes. Macro changes are just a whole lot of micro changes.

I could explain it, but you would require a rudimentary knowledge of biology and genetics.to understand. Here is what a world famous chemist has to say about evolution. And yes. He's been published. Many times.

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution | Uncommon Descent

 

[james bond]

Who still thinks humans came from apes?

It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists. They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.

Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.

Ha ha. Lucy didn't have any knees. Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground. That's embarrassing.

Let me ask you something. Look at the primate bipedal creatures. Do they have similar skeletal structures? Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?

The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?

It does not mean common descent. See, I can read your mind. That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts. What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world. Apes are not really bipedal creatures. They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.

 

[BreezeWood]

Who still thinks humans came from apes?

It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists. They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.

Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.

Ha ha. Lucy didn't have any knees. Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground. That's embarrassing.

Let me ask you something. Look at the primate bipedal creatures. Do they have similar skeletal structures? Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?

The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?

It does not mean common descent. See, I can read your mind. That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts. What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world. Apes are not really bipedal creatures. They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.

.

Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?

The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?

It does not mean common descent.

.
It does not mean common descent.

(within the species), your opinion ... however

considering both Flora and Fauna posses those same properties 100% it does represent a decent from an earlier similar origin that few if any in their present configuration are remotely, far less than 90%, similar to in nature today - What does that mean ? [sic].

.

 

[Lutroo]

Who still thinks humans came from apes?

It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists. They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.

Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.

Ha ha. Lucy didn't have any knees. Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground. That's embarrassing.

Let me ask you something. Look at the primate bipedal creatures. Do they have similar skeletal structures? Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?

The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?

It does not mean common descent. See, I can read your mind. That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts. What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world. Apes are not really bipedal creatures. They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.

.

Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?

The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?

It does not mean common descent.

.
It does not mean common descent.

(within the species), your opinion ... however

considering both Flora and Fauna posses those same properties 100% it does represent a decent from an earlier similar origin that few if any in their present configuration are remotely, far less than 90%, similar to in nature today - What does that mean ? [sic].

.

That is what is commonly referred to as a logical fallacy. It could also mean that everything had a common Creator. There is no evidence either way. Evolutionists simply accept their version on faith.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

for what insane reason would scientists have to lie about the big bang

seems like you just wanted to take an arbitrary shot at global warming for whatever reason

I didn't say that scientists are lying about the Big Bang... I'm merely suggesting that it was a miracle that caused it and right conditions in the universal constants for the universe to exist at all.

*****CHUCKLE*****

so if the universe itself is god what is the point of calling it god? seems like an pointless label

You say potato and I say potaatoo... Without God I wouldn't exist.

*****CHUCKLE*****

So if I touch (feel), hear, see, smell, or taste, something my 'feelings' aren't verifiable now?

Then how do you know anything exists?

Thoughts aren't testable...

Teachers test them every day.

...Sensations are, however.

...And my senses tell me every day that God exists.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Are you sure? You admit that classical physics did not apply during that time... Prove to us all that quantum physics applied any better.

I don't have the biggest understanding of that yet but quantum physics deal with particles on a subatomic level.

I see... So you think atoms and subatomic particles would still exist if the universe was say the size of a pinhead, baseball, or even a basketball... Interesting.

I'm not going to sift through several pages just to find one definition it would take you absolutely no effort to do I'm just going to run under the assumption that you interpret a really big coincidence as a miracle.

That is your choice and now my choice is obvious.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[james bond]

Who still thinks humans came from apes?

It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists. They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.

Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.

Ha ha. Lucy didn't have any knees. Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground. That's embarrassing.

Let me ask you something. Look at the primate bipedal creatures. Do they have similar skeletal structures? Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?

The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?

It does not mean common descent. See, I can read your mind. That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts. What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world. Apes are not really bipedal creatures. They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.

.

Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?

The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?

It does not mean common descent.

.
It does not mean common descent.

(within the species), your opinion ... however

considering both Flora and Fauna posses those same properties 100% it does represent a decent from an earlier similar origin that few if any in their present configuration are remotely, far less than 90%, similar to in nature today - What does that mean ? [sic].

.

The atheist scientists claim is that it means common descent and that a small difference can produce major changes. This is true. A small difference can produce something altogether different. What evos claim is this difference means macroevolution. It their conclusions are true, then there would be evidence of it everywhere. However, we find there isn't. We can't take something like two plants that are similar and create a flower nor do we see it in the wild, i.e. no experiments nor physical evidence.

Now, does the similarity mean a common creator and intelligent designer? The creation scientists would like to think so, but by the same toke we can't prove it either.
Again, no experiments or physical evidence to show creation. There is evidence of intelligence and design though due to complexity, so that could be the tipping point. A famous atheist, Anthony Flew, changed his mind after this type of evidence.

 

[emilynghiem]

As I have been saying all along, atheists are usually wrong. Here is another case. What you claim just goes to show you know very little about truth and the Bible. It's the most read and most famous book in the world selling over 5 BILLION copies. One of the reasons is science backs it up. Other reasons are for moral strength and guidance in times of need. It can help turnaround one's life. The atheist books cannot hold a candle to it. Probably Richard Dawkins writes his books so he can continue paying his ex-wife. Science has verified many things in the Bible. For one, atheist scientists believed in an eternal universe with no beginning and end. It was the Steady State Theory. Now, the Big Bang Theory has replaced it and SST became pseudoscience. The BBT backs up Genesis and the creation of the universe and world in six days. It's missing the part of God the Creator because science will not accept the supernatural and the God Theory.

This reads like a parody of what a Christian would say. You've got all the tropes, pseudoscience, overblowing the wisdom of the Bible, shitting on Richard Dawkins. It's so adorable, it's he's trying to be a real science man.

Christians fucking hate science, it contradicts what they've been taught in the Bible as fact and it looks like you're just trying to rationalize it to fit the Bible as hard as humanly possibly can because you know real science is far a better system. I guarantee you that that a vast majority of Bible sales are not because of scientific accuracy, even a 4th grade science textbook is a better source of scientific information. I don't suppose you'd know why we've dated the Earth to be several billion years old if it was true to the Bible? I'd love to know how you hard you can rationalize other stories in the Bible too.

It would appear your reading abilities and comprehension are on par with your knowledge of science and the scientific method...

When have I ever stated that I was a Christian? I haven't and I'm not.

Now knowing what my beliefs about God are should tell you that at no time have I been dishonest in how I've treated the information you and others have asked or provided.

I'd wish you better luck next time but I suspect that as with most progressive liberal atheists that you'll continue to make assumptions as you continue your bigotry and discrimination against people not of your mindset.

Assuming you were a Christian was a mistake, but with how hard you defend this you certainly do blend in with them just nicely. You still haven't gotten around to explaining exactly I'm ignorant of the scientific method, or do you just want to post more music videos?

Dem dayum liburul ateists, insulting em substitutes for a real argument, we wear. I don't even thinking you still understand the purpose or meaning of Russel's Teapot.

Dear Epitah
Faith and science go hand in hand.
Science is a system of describing laws of nature that according to Christian faith comes from the same God or Source of all life.
So ideally there is NO Conflict between science and religion and unless ppl cling to man-made divisions

As Scott Peck denounced in his writing, the division between faith and science is FALSE. It's the division that is causing problems, not the religion itself that doesn't have to be taught as hostile to science or science as hostile to religion.

As Francis MacNutt writes in his books reconciling spiritual healing with science -- it is a natural process that works with medicine and science not against or rejecting them.

I think you are talking about extreme fundamentalists who fear and reject science in mutual reaction to their counterparts the extreme nontheists who fear and reject religion.

In truth both the laws of science and nature, the laws of civil govt. And secular society , and the laws taught in religion philosophy ethics and humanities are all systems of expressing relationships. So the universal laws governing humanity and the world are the same, regardless which systems we use to represent these.

These don't need to be in conflict; in fact we do better to find where these agree or complement/check each other in harmony.

Remove the hostility fear and habit of competing to dominate and bully other groups. And what we have left are just the raw systems that we can use to communicate to different audiences using the laws they relate to. The diversity of systems allows us to address and organize different groups, and is not about making one right and favored over another. The point is to check and balance each other by having several independent sources to compare against to find what is common or universal, and what isnt. Again this helps with organizing like minded groups and delegating which systems are best used for which areas.

No reason to pit science and reason against faith and religion, when these different systems serve different purposes and communicate to different ppl.

 

[BreezeWood]

Who still thinks humans came from apes?

It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists. They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.

Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.

Ha ha. Lucy didn't have any knees. Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground. That's embarrassing.

Let me ask you something. Look at the primate bipedal creatures. Do they have similar skeletal structures? Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?

The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?

It does not mean common descent. See, I can read your mind. That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts. What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world. Apes are not really bipedal creatures. They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.

.

Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?

The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?

It does not mean common descent.

.
It does not mean common descent.

(within the species), your opinion ... however

considering both Flora and Fauna posses those same properties 100% it does represent a decent from an earlier similar origin that few if any in their present configuration are remotely, far less than 90%, similar to in nature today - What does that mean ? [sic].

.

The atheist scientists claim is that it means common descent and that a small difference can produce major changes. This is true. A small difference can produce something altogether different. What evos claim is this difference means macroevolution. It their conclusions are true, then there would be evidence of it everywhere. However, we find there isn't. We can't take something like two plants that are similar and create a flower nor do we see it in the wild, i.e. no experiments nor physical evidence.

Now, does the similarity mean a common creator and intelligent designer? The creation scientists would like to think so, but by the same toke we can't prove it either.
Again, no experiments or physical evidence to show creation. There is evidence of intelligence and design though due to complexity, so that could be the tipping point. A famous atheist, Anthony Flew, changed his mind after this type of evidence.

.

It could also mean that everything had a common Creator.

The atheist scientists claim is that it means common descent and that a small difference can produce major changes.

It their conclusions are true, then there would be evidence of it everywhere. However, we find there isn't.

then there would be evidence of it everywhere

this is an example in nature of one creature changing into another without evidence the two are the same ...


I'll try this as some of us believe some changes occur Spiritually - the Spirit directs alterations to the CNS - Brain after a completion (Sabbath) is accomplished and a new being is created.

the structural change from one species to another may be accomplished Spiritually where the change is first accomplished by the Spirit over a lengthy period of time and then is implemented by a single event that creates a new form without physical evidence of the transition. a form of metamorphosis.

A famous atheist, Anthony Flew, changed his mind after this type of evidence.

that maybe so but certainly he did not become a christian ...

.