Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There must have been a tear in the time-space continuum such that tens of millions of years is actually just a few thousand years spanning the time between Noah's ocean voyage and our current understanding of the natural world.A "designer" who by magic and supernatural methods *poofs* new life forms into existence.
Identify a single instance of that happening.
Oh, you can't? Didn't Think so.
Cambrian explosion where all those critters suddenly appear in the fossil record.*
Game, set, match atheists.
*By suddenly, we mean over the course of some 20-50 million years. But, hey, why let the details get in the way?
... and magic too. Don't forget the spontaneous eruption of shrubbery in flames.???....humanity.....though I reject your characterization of divine acts as mere magic.....David Copperfield does magic.....God does humans.....A "designer" who by magic and supernatural methods *poofs* new life forms into existence.if "pop" infers the lack of cause then I disagree......how about, species randomly occur over a long period of gradual change, species randomly occur over a short term due to a rapid change, or species are caused to occur when they are intended to occur by an intelligent designer?.........yes, in reference to single celled and multicelled organisms existing simultaneously........that does not mean I believe ALL species had to have been created at the same time......I do not, for example, believe that all the existing types of butterfly were all in existence since the beginning of time......Then let me refresh your memory. This was you in post 329, the post I was responding to...
"why do you believe they were not created at the same time?......is it because secular science tells you it would have take billions of years for it to occur as a result of random shit happening randomly......."
If they did not exist at the same time, then either species evolve over time or species just pop into existence.
Identify a single instance of that happening.
Oh, you can't? Didn't Think so.
if "pop" infers the lack of cause then I disagree......how about, species randomly occur over a long period of gradual change, species randomly occur over a short term due to a rapid change, or species are caused to occur when they are intended to occur by an intelligent designer?.........yes, in reference to single celled and multicelled organisms existing simultaneously........that does not mean I believe ALL species had to have been created at the same time......I do not, for example, believe that all the existing types of butterfly were all in existence since the beginning of time......I don't recall ever specifying that.....I believe that God created everything.....I have never put limitations on how or when he did it......You were talking about all species being created at the same time.
Then let me refresh your memory. This was you in post 329, the post I was responding to...
"why do you believe they were not created at the same time?......is it because secular science tells you it would have take billions of years for it to occur as a result of random shit happening randomly......."
If they did not exist at the same time, then either species evolve over time or species just pop into existence.
it is more of a jump than science has ever been able to overcome.....then the idea that a single cell organism can eventually become multi-celled is not much of a jump.
A "designer" who by magic and supernatural methods *poofs* new life forms into existence.
Identify a single instance of that happening.
Oh, you can't? Didn't Think so.
Cambrian explosion where all those critters suddenly appear in the fossil record.*
Game, set, match atheists.
*By suddenly, we mean over the course of some 20-50 million years. But, hey, why let the details get in the way?
a summary of nothing.....pick one, just one, that you believe is actually evidence of scientific proof for macroevolution and support it......I have debated them all over the years, it doesn't matter to me which one you pick.....I've been arguing with people who rely on that source for years.....there is not a single one of those "evidences" that cannot be evidence of something totally different than the theory that human beings evolved from an original single celled organism.....But You can start here: 29 Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent
as far as "junk" DNA is concerned, it is currently being suggested that what science used to consider non functioning is actually that part of the genome which permits a cell to adapt to changing environments.....
I do not rely on that source. I post it here because it provides a summary f
I've beaten atheists many times in my life. It's not as hard as you would think.
I shouldn't give up my secret but I will.
Here's the key. Atheists are hypocrites and because of that hypocrisy not nearly as smart as they think are.
How you say?
Well, let's take the way they demand HARD EVIDENCE for God. It you can't produce "evidence" God exists, then he can't.
BUT they treat Darwinism, Evolution, whatever you call it has hard fact.
Now HERE's the kicker, and this is how deceptive they are.
They say Creationism isn't "science" it's religion, BUT evolution is science.
But Creationism is not about Evolution it's about how life BEGAN. But atheists/evolutionists have NO HARD EVIDENCE for how life began. IN FACT, there isn't ANY HARD EVIDENCE for how life began.
There's only theories. Now theories are wonderful and atheists will go nuts twisting themselves into pretzels insisting that a theory is "proof" of how life began, BUT IT'S NOT.
Now why do they do that. Because then they would have to admit their "science" on how life began, has no more validity than Creationism, and therefore THEY ARE BOTH EQUAL AS THEORIES.
THEY CANNOT admit that. But press them on it and they will finally admit that how life began isn't EVEN really IN the theory of evolution. Why? Because no one KNOW how we really got here. That's why there are so many competing theories including the "alien seed" theory. No one really knows 100%.
Which means, it's all faith that your "theory" is correct. And Creationism is faith as well.
Atheists cannot admit that. That would mean they aren't any smarter or their beliefs have any more validity than those pesky Christians. They will twist themselves into pretzels rather than admit it.
But see how they create a double standard? They cite evolution as proof there is no God, but when pressed on it, will admit evolution doesn't even cover how life began. So how can it prove there is no God?
Answer: It can't!
Well run on posts are boring, so in my second post, I'll address the second double standard of atheism.
again, Hollie chooses to be irrelevant to the debate.....your YEC'ist world
your brain is ample evidence that clay is still involved.....He makes them out of clay too!???....humanity.....though I reject your characterization of divine acts as mere magic.....David Copperfield does magic.....God does humans.....A "designer" who by magic and supernatural methods *poofs* new life forms into existence.if "pop" infers the lack of cause then I disagree......how about, species randomly occur over a long period of gradual change, species randomly occur over a short term due to a rapid change, or species are caused to occur when they are intended to occur by an intelligent designer?.........yes, in reference to single celled and multicelled organisms existing simultaneously........that does not mean I believe ALL species had to have been created at the same time......I do not, for example, believe that all the existing types of butterfly were all in existence since the beginning of time......
If they did not exist at the same time, then either species evolve over time or species just pop into existence.
Identify a single instance of that happening.
Oh, you can't? Didn't Think so.
only if you believe its existence is the result of random chance.....if it was placed there for a purpose by an intelligent designer who desired it there, the odds of it being there is 100%.....claiming this is evidence of evolution is obviously circular reasoning......finding a similarity is not evidence of cause, it is evidence of similarity.....What this suggests is that somwhere in the past a species of primate was infected with a virus, the virus injected its DNA into a cell of that primate, and the primate passed that DNA to its offspring which eventually evolved into two different species which also have that DNA. The chances of a retrovirus' DNA being incorporated into the same place on both human DNA and chimpanzee DNA with the identical bit of DNA code is beyond astronomical.
only if you believe its existence is the result of random chance.....if it was placed there for a purpose by an intelligent designer who desired it there, the odds of it being there is 100%.....What this suggests is that somwhere in the past a species of primate was infected with a virus, the virus injected its DNA into a cell of that primate, and the primate passed that DNA to its offspring which eventually evolved into two different species which also have that DNA. The chances of a retrovirus' DNA being incorporated into the same place on both human DNA and chimpanzee DNA with the identical bit of DNA code is beyond astronomical.
so, people should stop pretending its been proven by science when science has not been able to prove it......it is more of a jump than science has ever been able to overcome.....then the idea that a single cell organism can eventually become multi-celled is not much of a jump.
There are lots of things science has not been able to overcome. So?
it is more of a jump than science has ever been able to overcome.....then the idea that a single cell organism can eventually become multi-celled is not much of a jump.
abiogenesis has evidence to support it?.......lol, no......it does not......lightening has been stricking mud puddles for millions of years......how many of them have been found teeming with new life forms?......While not proven, it at least has evidence to support it.
A shared problem among you YEC'ists is your abysmal lack of education in the sciences.abiogenesis has evidence to support it?.......lol, no......it does not......lightening has been stricking mud puddles for millions of years......how many of them have been found teeming with new life forms?......While not proven, it at least has evidence to support it.
not only does it have no more evidence to support it than ID, it actually has the evidence of those million years of lightning strikes WITHOUT new life as evidence it did NOT work.........
abiogenesis has evidence to support it?.......lol, no......it does not......lightening has been stricking mud puddles for millions of years......how many of them have been found teeming with new life forms?......While not proven, it at least has evidence to support it.
not only does it have no more evidence to support it than ID, it actually has the evidence of those million years of lightning strikes WITHOUT new life as evidence it did NOT work.........
See, this is the problem. I start a thread, it's straightforward and that's fine. But I'm a busy person. Can't stay all day sitting on a thread, I got a job to work, family to take care of, blah blah blah.. But once I have a moment to come back to it and catch up, it's a kajillion pages long, it's been derailed and it's just a real bore.
So, let's UNderail this sucker shall we?
I KNOW that atheists have been doing their BS for days now. And ignoring that I debunked that BS in the op.
Atheists can link to any number of theories but they still ARE theories. There is NO HARD EVIDENCE for how life began.
Pssst Don 8217 t tell the creationists but scientists don 8217 t have a clue how life began Cross-Check Scientific American Blog Network
Now why do atheists have a hard time admitting this?
Because it would mean they are no better, no smarter, and on the same level as those Christians and those Creationists they look down on.
Now, why is that so hard to figure out people?
There is no hard evidence.
Your rant is typical for fundie Christians / ID'iot creationists. It's the typical promotion of the science loathing agenda that grips the hyper-religious who feel threatened by the discipline of science.See, this is the problem. I start a thread, it's straightforward and that's fine. But I'm a busy person. Can't stay all day sitting on a thread, I got a job to work, family to take care of, blah blah blah.. But once I have a moment to come back to it and catch up, it's a kajillion pages long, it's been derailed and it's just a real bore.
So, let's UNderail this sucker shall we?
I KNOW that atheists have been doing their BS for days now. And ignoring that I debunked that BS in the op.
Atheists can link to any number of theories but they still ARE theories. There is NO HARD EVIDENCE for how life began.
Pssst Don 8217 t tell the creationists but scientists don 8217 t have a clue how life began Cross-Check Scientific American Blog Network
Now why do atheists have a hard time admitting this?
Because it would mean they are no better, no smarter, and on the same level as those Christians and those Creationists they look down on.
Now, why is that so hard to figure out people?
There is no hard evidence.
PRATCHETTFAN SAID:
“If the sight of a religious symbol makes you flee from a building, then I think the problem is with you - not the symbol.”
Incorrect.
The reference was made only in the context of Establishment Clause jurisprudence, prohibiting government from promoting religion, becoming excessively entangled in religion, or failing to have a secular purpose with regard to religious expression. The reference has nothing to do with religious expression concerning private persons or private property.
PRATCHETTFAN SAID:
“I would offer that if one is in the minority - and I certainly am - then one should think very hard about supporting the suppression of religious expression. If we can do it to them, then they can do it to us. And there are a lot more of them.”
Also incorrect.
Acknowledging and understanding Establishment Clause jurisprudence is not “supporting the suppression of religious expression.” Persons of faith are at liberty to engage in religious expression where appropriate in any venue, public or private. Should persons of faith seek to conjoin church and state in violation of the First Amendment, however, by using the power and authority of the state to promote a given religion, and the courts invalidate those efforts, such a prohibition does not manifest as “suppression of religious expression” because the adherent remains at liberty to practice his faith as he sees fit.
Hollie abandoning the debate.....you YEC'ists
Resigning before you're fired is a safe course of action.Okay, I got work to do atheists.
It's safe to stick your heads in now.
