Science Proves the Bible Again

[james bond]

Kalam's cosmological argument 1st statement -- Whatever begins to exist has to have a cause. We have demonstrated that the universe began to exist. Both sides agree on that.

I have seen no evidence that the universe had a beginning. Can you link to such evidence?

I'm taken aback coming from you since the answer is easy to find, i.e. creation scientists and secular scientists agree the universe had a beginning. How do you think the universe started or do you believe that it is eternal?

Some secular scientists say the universe had a Big Bang. That don't claim that was the absolute beginning of the universe. They all acknowledge that something may have come before the Big Bang.

Many other secular scientists are starting to warm up to the theory of the multiverse. There is a number of new theories out there, so your obsession with the Big Bang is not a good argument.

Why would I argue for big bang when I have creation haha? Like I said, you cannot figure things out to put it nicely.

When you quote the Bible, you aren't arguing anything. You're retreating into mysticism. You have abandoned the playing field.

I didn't quote the Bible in my arguments to you above, but the topic is "Science Proves the Bible Again." Shouldn't I be allowed to quote the Bible for such a topic?

It just goes to show you are making up lies up based on your stereotypes of creationists and creation science. Creation is what scientists believed as true before the 1850s. It is still true and best theory.

Regarding mysticism, isn't evolution just that? We didn't find any conclusive fossil evidence based on what you explained of it. If it were real evidence, then wouldn't you be able to persuade me easily? Instead, you just end up crying stating that I am espousing mysticism and have left the playing field. It sounds like you never arrived on the field as you didn't produce any valid argument nor convince anybody of transitional fossils nor produce any unrefutable fossil evidence.

Now, you're trying to get involved in big bang or trying to refute Kalam's cosmological argument. What do you have to say about that haha?

 

[Hollie]

I have seen no evidence that the universe had a beginning. Can you link to such evidence?

I'm taken aback coming from you since the answer is easy to find, i.e. creation scientists and secular scientists agree the universe had a beginning. How do you think the universe started or do you believe that it is eternal?

Some secular scientists say the universe had a Big Bang. That don't claim that was the absolute beginning of the universe. They all acknowledge that something may have come before the Big Bang.

Many other secular scientists are starting to warm up to the theory of the multiverse. There is a number of new theories out there, so your obsession with the Big Bang is not a good argument.

Why would I argue for big bang when I have creation haha? Like I said, you cannot figure things out to put it nicely.

When you quote the Bible, you aren't arguing anything. You're retreating into mysticism. You have abandoned the playing field.

I didn't quote the Bible in my arguments to you above, but the topic is "Science Proves the Bible Again." Shouldn't I be allowed to quote the Bible for such a topic?

It just goes to show you are making up lies up based on your stereotypes of creationists and creation science. Creation is what scientists believed as true before the 1850s. It is still true and best theory.

Regarding mysticism, isn't evolution just that? We didn't find any conclusive fossil evidence based on what you explained of it. If it were real evidence, then wouldn't you be able to persuade me easily? Instead, you just end up crying stating that I am espousing mysticism and have left the playing field. It sounds like you never arrived on the field as you didn't produce any valid argument nor convince anybody of transitional fossils nor produce any unrefutable fossil evidence.

Now, you're trying to get involved in big bang or trying to refute Kalam's cosmological argument. What do you have to say about that haha?

Before 1850, there was still some lingering doubt among religious zealots about heliocentricsm. That’s still true today proving the Darwinian theory of fitness for survival.

 

[Hollie]

I'm not ingnorant.

As for chimp and gorillas, ToE says that gorillas begat chimps. How did that happen? What change caused that? We have no fossil evidence. Moreover, how can it be when they do not mate? Thus, there are no chimp-gorilla hybrids as we expect to find and there are none. The evo researchers keep looking tho.

You are ignorant, at least of the ToE since the ToE says that gorillas did NOT beget chimps, only that they share a COMMON ANCESTOR. And that is why evo researchers would never look for one.

You are so wrong. These are common ancestors. Look it up. ToE is the dumb theory that you believe in. I'm not going to teach you ToE, stupie.

Thank you for not bludgeoning the board by teaching the religious zealots version of science. Rattling bones isn’t bad but burning people at the stake and snake handling get a bit messy.

 

[alang1216]

You are ignorant, at least of the ToE since the ToE says that gorillas did NOT beget chimps, only that they share a COMMON ANCESTOR. And that is why evo researchers would never look for one.

You are so wrong. These are common ancestors. Look it up. ToE is the dumb theory that you believe in. I'm not going to teach you ToE, stupie.

I don't have to look it up, I know it is NOT what the ToE says and I know you can't show otherwise.
ToE is the theory you know nothing about so obviously you're not going to teach anyone about it.

Seriously, are you just having fun with us or are you really this dense?

 

[zaangalewa]

You are ignorant, at least of the ToE since the ToE says that gorillas did NOT beget chimps, only that they share a COMMON ANCESTOR. And that is why evo researchers would never look for one.

You are so wrong. These are common ancestors. Look it up. ToE is the dumb theory that you believe in. I'm not going to teach you ToE, stupie.

I don't have to look it up, I know it is NOT what the ToE says

And how explains the theory of evolution why two members of an intelligent species, which needed about 13.8 billion of years to evolve, are not able to understand each other and do not try to find out what are the real reasons for their misunderstandings? Perhaps that god only trained, when he made Adam and his sons, while Eve and her daughters are much more powerful intellectual communicators with a wider horizon and a greater verbal spectrum than only to make a war with words in all kinds of possible nonsense?

and I know you can't show otherwise.
ToE is the theory you know nothing about so obviously you're not going to teach anyone about it.

Seriously, are you just having fun with us or are you really this dense?

Fun? ... Ah fun - unfortunatelly fun was in carneval - now is a fasting period - before Easter will come. Then fun will start again.

 

[james bond]

You are ignorant, at least of the ToE since the ToE says that gorillas did NOT beget chimps, only that they share a COMMON ANCESTOR. And that is why evo researchers would never look for one.

You are so wrong. These are common ancestors. Look it up. ToE is the dumb theory that you believe in. I'm not going to teach you ToE, stupie.

I don't have to look it up, I know it is NOT what the ToE says and I know you can't show otherwise.
ToE is the theory you know nothing about so obviously you're not going to teach anyone about it.

Seriously, are you just having fun with us or are you really this dense?

Again, you are wrong. You are wrong and don't know your own ToE. Anyway, I am glad this is out in the open now. The "common ancestor" is the low brow internet atheist's answer when they cannot describe or are capable of describing what the common ancestor looks like (no agreement), if there is a name for such creature nor have an understanding of how the common ancestor came down to make up the tree of life. You and your answers are easily disposed.

 

[james bond]

The correct answer is here.

We do not see tailed monkeys become tailless ones today. Nor do we see gorillas become chimps. Easiest and fastest way is by sexual reproduction or hybridization. I'm not sure how the DNA route works from gorillas to chimpanzees as I am not aware of anyone being able to change the DNA in order to effect the change. I think it was "assumed" that gorillas were common ancestors of chimps because there was a chimp hybrid with the facial features and skull that resembled a gorilla.

 

[alang1216]

You are ignorant, at least of the ToE since the ToE says that gorillas did NOT beget chimps, only that they share a COMMON ANCESTOR. And that is why evo researchers would never look for one.

You are so wrong. These are common ancestors. Look it up. ToE is the dumb theory that you believe in. I'm not going to teach you ToE, stupie.

I don't have to look it up, I know it is NOT what the ToE says and I know you can't show otherwise.
ToE is the theory you know nothing about so obviously you're not going to teach anyone about it.

Seriously, are you just having fun with us or are you really this dense?

Again, you are wrong. You are wrong and don't know your own ToE. Anyway, I am glad this is out in the open now. The "common ancestor" is the low brow internet atheist's answer when they cannot describe or are capable of describing what the common ancestor looks like (no agreement), if there is a name for such creature nor have an understanding of how the common ancestor came down to make up the tree of life. You and your answers are easily disposed.

Meet Ardi. Small brain, upright stance. Like no living ape or human. Possible common ancestor of the various species of homo.

 

[james bond]

You are ignorant, at least of the ToE since the ToE says that gorillas did NOT beget chimps, only that they share a COMMON ANCESTOR. And that is why evo researchers would never look for one.

You are so wrong. These are common ancestors. Look it up. ToE is the dumb theory that you believe in. I'm not going to teach you ToE, stupie.

I don't have to look it up, I know it is NOT what the ToE says and I know you can't show otherwise.
ToE is the theory you know nothing about so obviously you're not going to teach anyone about it.

Seriously, are you just having fun with us or are you really this dense?

Again, you are wrong. You are wrong and don't know your own ToE. Anyway, I am glad this is out in the open now. The "common ancestor" is the low brow internet atheist's answer when they cannot describe or are capable of describing what the common ancestor looks like (no agreement), if there is a name for such creature nor have an understanding of how the common ancestor came down to make up the tree of life. You and your answers are easily disposed.

Meet Ardi. Small brain, upright stance. Like no living ape or human. Possible common ancestor of the various species of homo.

You should have produced stuff earlier and had the explanations. All you are doing is riffing off the creation science poster.

If you get several paleontologists to describe how Ardi looked, then they would come up with different looks. The man who put both Lucy together and was on the team that discovered Ardi believes apes evolved from humans. So your artist's sketch is one to make him bipedal and look human to fit humans evolved from monkeys. The contradiction is tailed monkeys did not become tailless ones. There are so many contradictions and holes in macroevolution that it's worthless.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm not going to teach you ToE,

You sure aren't, because you know less than nothing about it. All of your talking points are plagiarized, and you don't understand any of them. You constantly say factually incorrect things about evolution.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Seriously, are you just having fun with us or are you really this dense?

He is really this stupid.

 

[GreenAndBlue]

Yes indeed the bible tells us what is history and what are the universal laws

 

[Hollie]

The correct answer is here.

We do not see tailed monkeys become tailless ones today. Nor do we see gorillas become chimps. Easiest and fastest way is by sexual reproduction or hybridization. I'm not sure how the DNA route works from gorillas to chimpanzees as I am not aware of anyone being able to change the DNA in order to effect the change. I think it was "assumed" that gorillas were common ancestors of chimps because there was a chimp hybrid with the facial features and skull that resembled a gorilla.

You have once again demonstrated your complete ignorance regarding the subject matter you rail against.

Your pointless cutting and pasting of cartoons you steal from creation.com merely make you an accomplice to stupidity.

You could troll a science site and get a well documented evolutionary history of what became the modern day horse. Of course Eohippus remained Eohippus, because once it evolved into a different genus, it was no longer Eohippus. The family tree of Equus evolution has been bolstered and enhanced with more fossils and fossil species. Rather than being the simplistic straight line of Eohippus (Hyracotherium) to Mesohippus to Merychippus to Pliohippus to Equus, horse evolution has proven to be a rather diverse splitting bush with many different twigs and branches.

In other words, it has been improved and enhanced, because we now know vastly more about horse evolution than we did when the first powerful evidence was published decades ago.

This is no different from the way our understanding of human evolution has grown and improved. It is fascinating to notice that creationists make much of the way our understanding of our own ancestry has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence.

And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn’t be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.

Like the horse, human evolution has proven to be not a straight line from ape-like to human, but a diverse splitting bush with many different twigs and branches. It has many dead ends populated by rather odd humans such as Neandertal, or hominids such as Australopithecus robustus.

But what it is NOT missing are transitional forms, many of them squarely intermediate between ape-like and man.


Here's a ball. Go play in the street. Demonstrate the Darwinian theory of fitness for survival.

 

[Hollie]

You are ignorant, at least of the ToE since the ToE says that gorillas did NOT beget chimps, only that they share a COMMON ANCESTOR. And that is why evo researchers would never look for one.

You are so wrong. These are common ancestors. Look it up. ToE is the dumb theory that you believe in. I'm not going to teach you ToE, stupie.

I don't have to look it up, I know it is NOT what the ToE says and I know you can't show otherwise.
ToE is the theory you know nothing about so obviously you're not going to teach anyone about it.

Seriously, are you just having fun with us or are you really this dense?

Again, you are wrong. You are wrong and don't know your own ToE. Anyway, I am glad this is out in the open now. The "common ancestor" is the low brow internet atheist's answer when they cannot describe or are capable of describing what the common ancestor looks like (no agreement), if there is a name for such creature nor have an understanding of how the common ancestor came down to make up the tree of life. You and your answers are easily disposed.

Meet Ardi. Small brain, upright stance. Like no living ape or human. Possible common ancestor of the various species of homo.

You should have produced stuff earlier and had the explanations. All you are doing is riffing off the creation science poster.

If you get several paleontologists to describe how Ardi looked, then they would come up with different looks. The man who put both Lucy together and was on the team that discovered Ardi believes apes evolved from humans. So your artist's sketch is one to make him bipedal and look human to fit humans evolved from monkeys. The contradiction is tailed monkeys did not become tailless ones. There are so many contradictions and holes in macroevolution that it's worthless.

Then explain the macroevolution of a Middle Eastern guy named jesus evolving into a tall, fair-skinned, fair-haired, Caucasian guy for his western audience.

The jeebus was made in the image of westerners.

 

[GreenAndBlue]

The correct answer is here.

We do not see tailed monkeys become tailless ones today. Nor do we see gorillas become chimps. Easiest and fastest way is by sexual reproduction or hybridization. I'm not sure how the DNA route works from gorillas to chimpanzees as I am not aware of anyone being able to change the DNA in order to effect the change. I think it was "assumed" that gorillas were common ancestors of chimps because there was a chimp hybrid with the facial features and skull that resembled a gorilla.

You have once again demonstrated your complete ignorance regarding the subject matter you rail against.

Your pointless cutting and pasting of cartoons you steal from creation.com merely make you an accomplice to stupidity.

You could troll a science site and get a well documented evolutionary history of what became the modern day horse. Of course Eohippus remained Eohippus, because once it evolved into a different genus, it was no longer Eohippus. The family tree of Equus evolution has been bolstered and enhanced with more fossils and fossil species. Rather than being the simplistic straight line of Eohippus (Hyracotherium) to Mesohippus to Merychippus to Pliohippus to Equus, horse evolution has proven to be a rather diverse splitting bush with many different twigs and branches.

In other words, it has been improved and enhanced, because we now know vastly more about horse evolution than we did when the first powerful evidence was published decades ago.

This is no different from the way our understanding of human evolution has grown and improved. It is fascinating to notice that creationists make much of the way our understanding of our own ancestry has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence.

And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn’t be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.

Like the horse, human evolution has proven to be not a straight line from ape-like to human, but a diverse splitting bush with many different twigs and branches. It has many dead ends populated by rather odd humans such as Neandertal, or hominids such as Australopithecus robustus.

But what it is NOT missing are transitional forms, many of them squarely intermediate between ape-like and man.


Here's a ball. Go play in the street. Demonstrate the Darwinian theory of fitness for survival.

Wrong dead wrong

All animals mutate their genes when under pressure to help stop that pressure

All but 1

The evolution pressure works with all the trillions of life forms but totally stops with humans

No life form out of trillions has mutated their genes to stop humans pressure on them

The lion went from totally dominating a human to totally being dominated by a human


The big error is the similarity of apes to man. What makes that similarity is the

TIMELINE.

The creator had just finished the ape and all the creations before the creator used the similar thinking that created the ape to now create HIS plan

Humans to then become gods of the universe as we move forward

How fast has apes advanced??

See a totally different design

Humans were his last creation proving all the other creating was to support his plan with humans

 

[GreenAndBlue]

Even Einstein said God does not play dice

And nothing is random


If nothing is random we could not have had a beginning that now science agrees with

 

[alang1216]

your artist's sketch is one to make him bipedal and look human to fit humans evolved from monkeys. The contradiction is tailed monkeys did not become tailless ones. There are so many contradictions and holes in macroevolution that it's worthless.

You don't know much about anatomy either. You can tell if a primate walked erect or not by looking at the skull.

What is this contradiction you keep mentioning?

 

[alang1216]

Even Einstein said God does not play dice

And nothing is random

If nothing is random we could not have had a beginning that now science agrees with

Einstein did say that but he has been proven wrong.

 

[GreenAndBlue]

But we see the educators and democrats going against science now with abortion ...we can see our advancement has not came from intelligence advancement

Our advancement comes they cycles of like that brings us 3 steps forward and 2 steps back. Which means we advance 1 step

Liberals come when the unwise gets too much freedoms and then the universal laws kicks in and corrects with destruction

Each cycle of life we start out moving 3 steps forwards then freedoms comes to the unwise and we go back 2 steps

Yes carbon dating and the fossil record proves the bible correct

 

[alang1216]

Seriously, are you just having fun with us or are you really this dense?

He is really this stupid.

Impossible!