...?what? You lie a lot about Ravi Z. He doesn't claim he's might among apologetics...or manipulate the audience by saying Harvard and such you can watch videos or look at his schedule :-/ then you show videos of fanatic Christians. It's this kinda thing that shows who you are inside. Thought people had gotten past sheer ignorance and trying to portray those with different beliefs as crazy. Feel sorry for people who have so much hatred for others.
Why do atheists try so hard to prove God doesn't exist? If you really believed that there was no God, you just would not care! I think it takes more faith to be an atheist than a Christian.
@catalysthiphop Why? Christians need to beliee in some old book. Atheism, you just think that a diety doesnt exist. Simple as that,
And why do atheists try to prove that a diety doesn't exist? Because some people try so hard (and sometimes it works) to embed Christianity into our lies, via politics, laws, ect.
But really, you got to ask an actual atheist. I'm just an agnostic.
Because Children are being brainwashed into the Christian lie, because there is a preacher who wants to make a list of all atheist so that they can be boycotted and ostracized, because politicians are making decisions based upon an ancient book instead expert scientific advice, because Christians keep injecting themselves into our lives by protesting random harmless events (IE: Dancing), because Christians are full of hate and bigotry and it shows.
@AtheistExplains That is making some generalizations there, as well as some propositions that may not be true, and relating certain groups of people to the whole movement of Christendom, which implies that because part of it went bad the whole thing went bad, which is not necessarily true by consequence. That ancient book is also the most accurate and powerful book the world has ever seen. You would have to know quite a lot about this ancient book in order for me to take you seriously.
@blacksheepgirl no no no,prais the invisible leprachaun HE made everything and all people! or was it the great pink unicorn? NO i'm totally wrong it was the invisible dragon living in my garage! how could i ever doubt it? ..........there is no god,get over it!
@peredebeeste It is true. I will not get over it. I have faith. I hope one day you'll believe too. That's the last thing I have to say.God is awesome!
@blacksheepgirl i am trully sorry to hear that! i don't get it,how lost must you be to believe in an invisible skygenie? modern man has the oportunity to rid himself of these ilusions true reason and common sence,why do so manny people keep believing these lies?
@blacksheepgirl yet more foolish claims by a foolish person. get educated, and realise that you've been brainwashed and conditioned into thinking in the most narrowminded and dumb way. stupid stupid religious people.
WE are the moral law givers.. damn creationists are so insecure, they're like: "I can't decide what's best for myself, so there must be a being which does that for me..."
What most people dont realize is, that Darwin repented on his knees, about everything he taught regarding evolution and humbly received Christ as his personal savior. He lived in misery for 20 years before repenting of everything he taught. You will notice that THIS is not taught in the universities. Sad, that so many people are still deceived by the doctrine he taught.
@Motleyclimber This isn't taught in universities because it isn't true. Darwin's thoughts on his own theory are well known (through his published works and correspondence) and they don't include some last minute reversal of opinion. We even know what he said on his deathbed because his wife saw fit to write it all down in her diary. I'm curious what your sources are on this and why you believe it so adamantly.
PS: Also, as I'm sure it's been pointed out to you before, the validity of this theory would not be impacted one bit by "repenting" of it. He was a scientist not a prophet. His theory stands on its own.
@Motleyclimber so what? what darwin did or did not do makes no difference to what's really true. maybe one day i will get scared and pray to god. maybe that's a natural human reaction. so what? it changes NOTHING, u fool. get educated. realise that there is no reason to believe in trolls, gods, goblins or unicorns. u r a fool to live in todays technologically advanced society and still believe in myths based on ZERO evidence and ZERO logic. stupid stupid religious ppl.
you offer GAWD done it..god can do anything...well so could darwin it is a secret us evolutionists have been keeping from you bibleists..Darwin really created the earth and he can do anything he wants.f you dont follow darwin you will get put in a pot of boiling water after you die
unless you mean the one with bones are tubes of bronze...so a Bronze dino with hollow bones...let me guess im out of context again you always right everyone else is wrong...smack spanked again
Dude, it's called hyperbole...you'll probably need to look that up. Job is making a description to show how big and powerful the creature is. I guess you take all writings literally. You're stretching fella:) Disregard that passage if you want, but you know just as I do, sitting there right now. that that passage throws a little wrinkle in your position. And i'm not the one who's right. I didn't make this stuff up. I'm just relaying information.
"modern science" will change tomorrow:) it's funny how it always does. Real science actually agrees with the bible more and more each day. The bible is supported by science. It's a fallacy to think science and the bible are at odds. I could list a hundred things that science has done to prove the bible true.
I'm curious, how did Job in about 600 BC describe a creature that we today didn't know existed until about a hundred years ago?
"Real science actually agrees with the bible more and more each day."
-You mean any pseudoscience that you think agrees with you position. It's sad that you disregard all evidence that shows your beliefs are false.
"how did Job in about 600 BC describe a creature that we today didn't know existed until about a hundred years ago? "
-It seems to me he might have been talking about an elephant. You're doing what most Christians do with the Bible, and picking out what you want to believe.
Please show me "evidence" that proves my position wrong.
I don't think an elephant has a "tail like a cedar." unless Job was talking about a sapling. Keep disregarding his observation, but now I've already put it in your head and you have to live with this knowledge without an explanation of how it fits your world view:) sorry, this will haunt you all your days.
-No, it doesn't. If it did, I would have to believe in the Illiad and several other books with mythical creatures in them, most describing them in much more detail.
No. The Iliad has no basis in real life events and never claimed to. Also who cares if that book described the creatures in more detail?! Those creatures ARENT REAL. Dinosaurs are. No sure where you're headed with that argument.
-And how do you know the "leviathan" was a dinosaur? The only thing you've argued is: "It's really big, has a tail, so it's a dinosaur!" How do you know that Job even wrote that, much less that we can trust it as a firsthand account.
If you read the whole thing, he says quite a bit more than what you just claimed. If it wasn't a dinosaur, what was it? That's the point. And Job did write it, but let's say he didn't. At least we know a HUMAN wrote it. And he was watching an animal that has the description of a dinosaur. Oh wait. Maybe it wasn't a human that wrote it. Maybe it was an advanced chimp. That would fit your theory. You are still left to explain, WHAT was it Job was looking at if not a dino?
-What about Grendel from Beowolf? And other creatures from ancient texts? How do you know Job's account wasn't just made up like others probably were?
Have you ever seen a fossil of Grendel? If Job made it up then he got extremely lucky. I'm not sure what's not coming across about the fact that dinos are real and Grendel is not. You keep making the comparison, but logically the comparison doesn't hold because dino's do not equate to Grendel. Apples and oranges.
"Please show me "evidence" that proves my position wrong."
-That's like me trying to prove a flat-earther wrong. I've pointed out several flaws with your "hypothesis"; if you want to see more and look at some of the overwhelming evidence for my position, look it up. Most of the pro-evolution sites actually back up their claims with scientific data, unlike pro-creation sites that simply just assert things and say they're true.
If my position was wrong, you should be able to point out something about it.Your "flaws" are simply assumptions about what couldn't have happened because you say so.Ive got a biology degree from a major university and know that what they teach isn't accurate.There are many things in their text books that have been proven wrong years ago.Also apparently, you've never been to the Creation Museum.I dare you to walk through it, read all the science in there and then attempt to make these arguments
No. these aren't my theories. Other scientists have recently proven a lot of that material wrong. For example, the illustration of the stages of a human embryo next to that of a chicken embryo showing they are identical. Ever see that in a text book? Well it's a know fact today that the original artist admitted he fudged the drawing and today's scientists don't accept it. But it's still in text books right now. That's one example.
Of course you laughed. That's your defense mechanism.
When people are presented with facts and have no answer for them, they too laugh and walk away because there's no other option.
Facts are pesky little things huh? Throws holes right in your theory. I dare you to go observe the science within the museum. Laughing at a documentary because you'd rather not face the evidence within, isn't very diligent. That's simply the stage of denial.
"I dare you to go observe the science within the museum. "
-Because it's not science. All they (and you) are doing is taken research that has already been done by real scientists, and twisting it to fit your hypothesis, and discrediting anything that you can't fit as "bad science".
Ha. "It's not science." KEn Hamm has more science degrees and is touted as more credible than most scientists alive. He'll smoke anyone in a debate, he already has. If you go look at the museum or read any of Ken Hamms stuff, you'll undoubtedly know it's science and you won't be able to argue. I'm guessing though that you'd rather turn a blind eye on this one. The only science I discredit is science that's already been proven wrong.
-He has a bachelors in Applied Sciences, and is dismissed as a retard by almost anyone with any credibility. Of course he touts the garbage in his museum as "science", that's where his paycheck comes from. He also had a lawsuit filed against him from a different creationist group for disorderly conduct/ focusing on money.
I agree here. Newer ones probably don't have it in them because it's been made a big deal, although I can't be sure. My point is though that that evolutionary concept was taught for decades after it was proven false.
Though the original drawings were forged to a certain extent, the resemblance is actually quite striking. Our nearest ancestors look very much like us, more so than very distant ones, like evolution would predict (a human embryo doesn't really resemble a chicken embryo much, but it does resemble chimp embryo's). However, on celular and genetical level, identical functions and genes are active that are the same in huge orders of animals, even ones that don't resemble eachother use the same genes
So wouldn't it make sense that the same Designer made all these since He merely used some of the same parts?:) For example, Buick Lesabre lugnuts fit on a Buick regal. Same designer, same parts. That's not unusual and wouldn't be in this case. I agree.
The fact that under the same conditions, which appear by themself without help from outside (the lab condition is a recreation of a natural state, there is nothing 'being' created), life follows automatically everywhere in the universe, would mean the universe is lawful and constant and would argue against magical intervention by an entity. What you are saying is technichally possible but it is impossible to proof or falsify, therefor it is not possible to know if it's true, ever.
The lab condition is not a recreation of a natural state. It's a SPECIFICALLY intended attempt to recreate what you THINK the state was like. Very different from chaos producing order by chance. Have you ever experienced chaos produce order without outside intervention? No. Therefore, that logically implies a designer, unless we aren't talking logically here.
You exist, don't you? We have a solar system, don't we? That's order. Everything naturally wants to move toward disorder on it's own.....unless something created order.
"We have a solar system, don't we? That's order. "
-How many times has this planet been hit by asteroids? Which is another thing I think disproves your claim (Iridium in certain layers of the Earth's crust).
Not sure where you are headed with that argument. Being hit by asteroids proves disorder?
I do recall watching a documentary debunking the iridium argument though. I'll have to find it. I don't recall the iridium argument and I don't recall the rebuttle.
Ha! You can't come up with your own theories...unless you want to enlist the help of scientists and do some research.
I did watch a video explaining iridium though. It was a sensible and well supported explanation. But I don't remember where the source is. Now you got me wondering where I can find it. If I waste a day of my life looking, I blame you:)
In at least one case the iridium would have taken half a million years to cover the earth by evolutionary counting.More likely is that the iridium enrichment came from volcanic activity not outer space.Volcanoes do produce iridium and spread it out
The condition in the lab was artificially created but resembled an early earth. It was molecularly very simple and there was no trace of life, not even of the building blocs of life was there a trace. But in a short time, molecules very similar to amino acids formed. Under the right conditions, heat, pressure, and molecules present, a random electric discharge can create complex molecular structures from simple ones. Imagine what this might lead to during billions of years!
I understand all the elements of this theory and can take hours pointing out the flaws. Everything you stated is an assumption that was created to fit your conclusion. THere is no evidence that this is how it was. You say "resembled an early earth" which is the first assumption that leads to the rest.
@punchymills please you and the assumption no one does it more than people that read the bible
you assume adam and eve had more kids.you assume there was a global flood
you assume 6 days ment 24hr days you assume you are right and everyone else is wrong,you assume all forms of radion metric and carbon dating are wrong.you assume everyone really believes in god,
Adam and eve had more kids. The bible even names some. Do you think the bible has room to name every detail like all their kid's names? God says in the bible not to throw common sense out the window.
The bible stated the flood was global.
The bible also stated that day means day. If you study the Hebrew, yom means literal day and is used to mean literal day in other places of the bible in which on one questions it's meaning.
@punchymills well as a matter of fact I do know there was no flood.Like my dad says Christain have an answer for everythnig and if they don't there more than happy to make one up.that whole gawd done it is lame everytime Christain get backing into a corner ther whip out that old jem.Why not just say you dont know.
Oh you do know there was no flood? Interesting. And yes, that is our answer because it's true. Do you think that God is going to let us in on all His thoughts and reasons? Face it. You are human just like me and have no business playing that game. We are weak and stupid compared to God. Sorry to burst the bubble. THinking that humans have the answer for everything is simply egotistical, which is essentially why people refuse to believe in God in the first place....their ego's run a muck.
@punchymills thinking humans are the ones that dont believe in god.I have read book by people who were smarter than you sorry to burts your bubble but you will never know the mind of a guy like hawkings .I never said I have all the answers.. you did ..but your right it is egotistical.
Well there are all kinds of people who know more than me on all kinds of subjects. correct. It's foolish even for the smartest guy to think he knows more than God. His knowledge is worthless. I didn't say you were egotistical, I said the reason people don't believe in God is because they refuse to think that there is something "higher" than themselves. People want to be the apex of knowledge for their own glorification. It's a blow to the ego to think someone else owns us.
@punchymills I did say you were egostistical ,mostly because of all the god stories you say your is right.Anyone that thinks diff is wrong, or has been duped..I find that somewhat egotisitical.His knowlege is useless..so i guess the light bulb computro medical advances are useless?kind of a silly thing ta say.
As a Christian I've submitted to the fact that there is a higher authority than me who is more powerful and deserves my praise.That doesn't seem egotistical to me. Also, I've stated a hundred times that Christianity isn't MY idea so I can't take credit for it....therefore, I'm not boasting about MY ideas.
I didnt say the inventions you mentioned are useless.They fall within the wisdom of the bible: they arent contradictory.What I was saying is that human ideas outside of God are worthless
@punchymills the light bulb and computors are in the bible...the earth being round..that not in the bible..I should say the earth being a sphere and that it goes around the sun,antibiotics..I missed that part in the bible.Or maybe it does in the hebrew version of the bible that you read.
the earth being suspended in the sky...that's in the bible. Hmmm how did Moses know?
Anyway, clever. You missed my point. Those ideas don't contradict the bible. They are within its limits. Now evolution from rocks to people, that contradicts the bible and is a manmade idea. I hope that's clear.
@punchymills strange you used evloution to make your point about mutation..guess you must have been wrong then.On a side note evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life that abiogenesis,I'm sure you know that.Abiogenesis never said we came from rocks..that the bible that said we came from rocks...or dirt..or dust whatever.the earth is not suspended in the sky..its in space and orbits around the sun..not in the bible but still the truth.
microevolution is true. evolution from one kind to another is not.
Evolution automatically implies there must be an origin somehow, or else do evolutionists just ignore that issue altogether? "Yeah, organisms change but we don't know how they got here"
And you don't think the earth is suspended in the sky? I guess we're being held up by atlas then:)
I don't know to which statement your first question regards.
Suspended doesn't mean FROM anything. You ignore the fact that he knew the answer. Takes a great deal of twisting to the definition of "suspended" to ignore the fact.
@punchymills micro v macro ask them what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter.I guess your different than me I hear suspended I think it suspended from something I hear sky I dont think outer space takes a great deal of twisting to the definition to ignor the facts
many things prevent micro from becoming macro. But without getting into hours of writing, have you ever witnessed it? That should tell you alot.
Also, a fish can be suspended in water just as the planet is suspended in the sky. physically not in the same way, but the concept should make it clear.
Good then we agree. and 7% difference in dna is huge comparatively. Like I said a Designer uses a lot of the same parts for his designs because they work. It doesn't mean we came from monkeys.
@punchymills Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king "saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth ... reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds."
different definitions dude.....you're trying awefully hard to dismiss the text. It's used poetically. Also, I haven't looked at the Hebrew text. I'm sure the specific meaning is more clear and would satisfy you:)
@punchymills again with the assumpitons,maybe the hebrew is more clear maybe its worse maybe it ay flat earth or that the erath dosen't move. but 7% is alot see what happens over time with small changes.
no assumption. You're skirting the facts. moses knew about the earth when no one knew how the earth was positioned until recently.
And yes, we do see what happens over time with small changes. Wolves produce coyotes, dingos, foxes, blood hounds, beagles, poodles, great danes, etc. but NEVER anything else.
@punchymills talk about skirting the facts..the word circle means sphere even if there is a word for hebrew that means shpere.I looked it before you run to that old jem.Why not say shpere if you think that the shape of the earth.
Again facts what about all the transitional fossals,just want to ignore them dont cha.
Also use or lack of use, doesn't support dna changes. That's scientifically incorrect and a common mistake. If I worked out all the time and had big biceps, my offspring wouldn't necessarily automatically have big biceps.
@punchymills well you cant have it both way.if you belive nin mirco evolution or dont you,you talking again about small changes,you said you thought that was true.I never said anything about use or lack of use I just said whales have a recessive gene that ment at sometime in the past they had legs..there are countless other e.i. chickens have the gene to grow teeth.I listed the place you can go see trasitional fossils if you want to pay it no mind thats fine, but then dont fain ignorance of them
Those are assumptions...."whales had legs" "chickens had teeth". There is absolutely no evidence for this. Can chickens grow teeth? You are all assuming you've identified something that is not seen. You say "recessive gene meant sometime ago they had legs". Says who? Based on what? How do you know the gene is simply recessive? Don't two recessive genes display themselves? why not put 2 together and create a whale with legs? These "discoveries" hold no water.
I'm honestly looking for these facts. Cant find em. For example, so what if chickens have the tooth gene? What does that prove? There are some other birds that used to have teeth, but they are still birds. I'm just not finding the proof you claim
How do you get that from "chickens have the teeth gene"? All that shows is that chickens have the teeth gene. So? Maybe the chicken came from another bird that had teeth. Other birds are shown to have teeth. But somehow evolutionists take this to mean that chickens were once lizards. I guess I'm looking for the evidence that shows that chickens were once something else.
I've seriously searched high and low and have found no transitional fossil worth its salt. I probably can't find them because they don't exist. If you gave me a resource I'd be happy to read it and think about it for a bit. Honestly, I don't think that lizard chickens are out there or something of the sort.
@punchymills well they do i list a bunch for the whale..What is worth there salt.try to put this much skepticism to the bible ,oh you cant the bible offers no evidence at all.Other than cricle mean sphere and you can see all of the earth from a tall tree.
@punchymills again I ask you why is it that you dont think with enuff changes that after a great deal of time something can become something eles?We see it in the "fossil record" alot
because we don't see it in the fossil record. Frankly, we don't even know that any given fossil your find ever had any children which stops the process right there doesn't it?
Encoded in genes is a certain amount of information. Bird can have short beaks, long beaks, white heads, red heads, small wings large wings but they didn't come from lizards. Nothing shows this.
@punchymills we do see it in the fossil record sorry if you want to ignore it find but there are there I have see um..if you have this degree you would have seen them as well.
show me a lizard fossil and show me that it had offspring and that those offspring look like chickens. You can't infer a relationship just because it fits your theory.
EXACTLY!!!!! You can't use the fossil record or "still shots" to prove it. This is something that can only be confirmed by witnessing it. And frankly, WE DON'T WITNESS ANYTHING OF THIS SORT
yes. we WITNESS it. But we can't look at a picture of a baby and assume it grew up nor can we assume it had children when it grew up nor can we assume that the children were anything but children (human).
You can't infer something out of random puzzle pieces without any reason other than the fact that you want it to be true to fit your world view.
If evolution were happening, we'd see these transitions now. But the facts are the all species are pretty cut and dry
@punchymills toothfairy LOL ..random puzzle.You think the same thing you just think it all happened in 5000 years.wolf to little dog 5000 years t rex to whatever 5000 years..was he on the ark speaking of the toothfairy.All these animals got off the big boat and evolved BUT ONLY mircoevolution.Because macro is impossable because god says so.You call those facts.
do you think noah would put full grown animals on the ark? eggs and babies perhaps:)?
Ok, so we both agree that Christianity and evolution are religions that require belief. I can deal with that. Fact is that evolutionist are just modern humans looking for an alternative to God because they can't face Him in their sin. There's no real basis for it otherwise.
@punchymills eggs and bibies sound like you makin an assumption story called the bible has no agenda ya right and there is no such thing as a evolutionist...its a made up wordpeer review is garbage whatever again your assumption based on what??? your Christain agneda.cant face god I dont belive in god you can think I do all you want again another of your assumptions.
So again you make a reasonable conculsion fine ..why is it if science makes one its wrong?
Again there is not such thing as an "evolutionist"they do know how things went from one thing to another I posted Several e.i. for you..you said they weren't worth salt??the bible says nothing about babies or eggs would love to know how an eeg made it way to the ark or a baby.I do see the problem with 2 of every full grown animal on a tiny boat
No evolutionists don't know how things went from one to another. It's a guess and isn't observed.
Ok probably not eggs. I was answering in a hurry. More likely children and very young adults. Would you start a new colony with two old people or two young teenagers? That's easy.
And Noah didn't need as many animals as you think. 2 dogs led to coyotes, beagels, hounds, wolves etc. 2 birds led to pigeons, ostrich, flamingo etc. Here is where I agree with what evolution can do.
@punchymills it is observed over and over again only bibleistis dont belive this simple fact.species with less than 20 members dont make it ,that is an observed fact.
you agree mircoevolution is right but how could it be it is a peer reviewed thoery and peer review is crap right?
If a member of a species mutated to form another species, that species would only start with ONE member. But miraculously we get thousands of members? Wait, unless somehow 50 members mutated with the same gene all at once.
@punchymills again you make tone of assumptions why do you do that ,you seam to have a real proplem with other that you claim do that..mutations take a long time so at one point you have something totaly different but a common ancestor.like an ostrich from a dove..maybe a million years ago a small lizard made the small change and started to grow down.then after feww 1000 years or so feathers then started to fly a 1000 years later.or small dove becomes giant flightless bird.
Your whole statement is an assumption with no evidence. I read fairytales to my daughter at bedtime. This will be a good one. Lizards that grow feathers. I've seen that!
If a lizard did miraculously grow feathers, when it mated, did all the offspring have feathers? Was it a positive trait that was selected for? If so, why would feathers on a lizard be beneficial? Of course these are all hypothetical because it can't and didn't happen. Do lizards have a feather gene that we can activate?
Hmmmm I didn't say you get ostrich from pigeons. I was saying that they likely evolved from the same ancestor which is another BIRD, but a bird nonetheless.
If you are trying to say that ostriches and pigeons aren't related and evolution didn't happen, then I guess this discussion is over as you now have flipped your postion 180 degrees.
@punchymills I asked you a question that you have yet again ducked.Can you show me the transitional forms from lets say dove that was on the ark to ostrich.Something you say can only be done by guessing.
@punchymills I made no statement I asked a question and you have ducked it 3 times now.Can you show me the transitional form from dove to ostrich.doesn't have to be fossil im sure they have found lots of other evidence.
I believe I answered it above. the first part of my statement is NO followed by my reasoning. And it's not necessarily a fact that an ostrich came directly from a dove. I never made that assertion as a fact.
@punchymills 2 of every animal on the ark dove finds branch..dove becomes ostrich..can you show me a trasitonal form or not there should be lots of skelital remains,.
NO. NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS. WE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY FIND THEM SINCE FOSSILS CAME FROM THE FLOOD. IF THERE ARE TRANSITIONAL FORMS, THEY WOULD HAVE ROTTED AWAY. FOSSILS CAN'T FORM UNLESS THEYRE BURIED QUICKLY. THEY DECAY AND ARE EATEN ETC.
Besides, what's your point? Are you trying to prove that not even micorevolution is true?
@punchymills LOL talk about bad science so you make the assumetion that the dove ans the ostrich are realated since by your own admission there is no evidence left.They decay and are eaten..Im tryin to show ..and did show that birds have a common ancestor in lizards
@punchymills i was trying to show you that microevolution becomes macroevolution,,after enuff time the original speices becomes something totaly different..You have yet to show me how this is not the case.
Hmmmm I don't need to show you it's not the case. You can't prove that it is. Never been observed, nor is there any evidence. All assumptions. We can wait to see if it ever happens. I have a feeling it will be a while
@punchymills there are tons of sites that prove this point again do you think all the scienstist go to an athiest meeting and hatch plot to fool the world ???there write your wong.
most americans buy cars by financing them. This is financially stupid. Consensus doesn't make ingorance all of the sudden brilliance.
No. there are not tons of sites that PROVE any of this true. I'll cut off my left arm if you can prove without assumptions or inferences that this is the case. Saying two things share dna or share features proves nothing except for that they share dna and share features no matter how much rhetoric is added to the discusssion.
@punchymills most people do buy a car by financing that is a fact ..if I was to say it was only your assumption you could show me the evidence..I could say well that evidence is colleted by people who hate banks so of cource they say that.
@punchymills radiometric dating is a FACT it had been proven correct countless times.Just becasue you like to say stul like assumptions means nothing you have no evidence to prove its not accurate..only your word based on you dont want it to be true.
you can yell "IT"S A FACT" as loud as you want. it doesn't make it so.
How has it been "proven" to be a fact? Did you use radiometric dating to verify your initial radiometric dating was accurate? That would be the type of logic I've been hearing.
We know it's not true. All we have to do is send ya'll some cells of KNOWN AGE and check your results against it. You've shown us time and time again that those ages aren't even close
@punchymills what method of radiometric dating are you sayin is wong?
funny when they date thing they do know the age of it works fine..and no one argues till the dating goes back more than 6000 years then all the biblisits go nuts
@punchymills and the cells your talking about I think were the cells from seals and it was to check carbon14.You cant use carbon 14 to date something ..i.e sael because they build there own carbon.
@punchymills so what methods of radiometric dating are wrong why do you never answer a question..when did this day old cells thing happed..was it the seal thing is that what your talking about?
which radiometric dating method do you want to discuss first? c14? Potassium Argon? All have the same fallacies. Rocks of known age <200 yrs from a volcanic eruption were dated to be millions of years old. Rocks a few feet apart had millions of years of difference in their dates. We still find C14 in diamonds, which are supposed to be millions of years old.
@punchymills that is not true you would have to show me those findings I have seen nothing of the kind.And for a guy who hates assumption you sure made a lot of them.You assume the only way fossil could get on the top of a muntain is a flood.you assume fossils could only be created by a flood.And you have never shown an inconsistencies you said there are but never offered any proof
fossils can only form quickly. that's my positoin and a FACT. Flood is not the only way, but the most likely explanation based on the evidence. Getting buried over millions of years, however, is NOT a likely explanation.
@punchymills no no you said the only way fossils get made were from the flood..you allways back track,make up your mind.I never said getting buried over millions of years
@punchymills and again i ask you what dating methods do you use or are used to support our claime that mt everest is only 5000 years old and all the fossils are the result ofthe flood?Or do you just assume all that true cause ya wanna?
Never said I used any dating methods. Ive been showing you their inconsistencies for a while now.
Take an ancient text that we have no reason not to believe and have thousands of verified claims. Take a fossil record that could only exist by way of instant burial aka flood, take the fact that we find sea bottom sediments and fossils on top of mt everest etc. The story comes together. There is of course a bit more to it.....ie we find C14 in diamonds etc.
@punchymills A good point was just sent to me..If all the radiometric dating methods used were wrong they would have lots of different finds rather than the same wrong find.the fact that the results are the same shows they are write.And accurate.
not necessarily. I didn't say the testing methods were erratic. In fact the testing methods can be consistent.
The issue is that you assume consistent rate of decay and that no material was lost by any other method previously to when you found it. So, in fact radiometric dating can be accurate and consistent for the same material because the conditions you experience in the present are the same when you use each method.
@punchymills ok again what method of radiometric dating are you talking about there are over 40 that use serveral diff isotopes??so how can they all be the same what thety are looking at the decay rate of totaly diff things?
they all make the basic errors. Do you really think that a piece of rock has the isoptopes of all the materials used in each one? It's hard enough to find a rock that has radioactive isotopes let alone enough to use each method on the same piece.
@punchymills so again if no dating methods work how do you know the flood was 5000 years ago,not 6000 or 10000 or a million.but they do find rocks they do used diff methods and they all have the same findings..again do you think its an evil plot to fool bibleists
Flaws in radiometric dating is described in detail in many places.
We are tracing the flood age back from biblical timelines. Also, there is a dating method that is pretty accurate that actually backs it. I forget which one, but I'll have to find the reference. I can't remember every detail you know.
@punchymills A key point is that it is no longer necessary simply to accept one chemical determination of a rocks age. Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs. Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other.
seriously, do you believe that a bunch of isoptopes are in the same rock? You can get different ages from rock that's three feet apart. Your statement would be nice, but getting an age of 2-11 million years old and then another of 6-17 million years old isn't confirmation of accuracy just because times of millions of years overlap
@punchymills last on my rant .if as you say all the fossils were created by the flood..why do we not find T-rex above people ..did no T rex make it to high ground why do we allways find them in about the same place all over the world.again you say the only way a fossil can be made is by water..??so then you would think ann the animals that can swim or run fast would have made it to high ground..and that is what the fossil record would show..it does not
you don't know the specific habits of the animals. You can't tell that according to fossils. Who knows exactly where they were and how they lived? You don't. What we do find is mammals, those who live inland on TOP. You claim it's because they evolved last. I claim it's because they lived further from water. Some swimming animals likely survived the flood yes, hence why we have some "ancient" species still alive. Others were buried because huge amounts of sediment were washed into the ocean.
...?what? You lie a lot about Ravi Z. He doesn't claim he's might among apologetics...or manipulate the audience by saying Harvard and such you can watch videos or look at his schedule :-/ then you show videos of fanatic Christians. It's this kinda thing that shows who you are inside. Thought people had gotten past sheer ignorance and trying to portray those with different beliefs as crazy. Feel sorry for people who have so much hatred for others.
vyperr3 4 months ago
Why do atheists try so hard to prove God doesn't exist? If you really believed that there was no God, you just would not care! I think it takes more faith to be an atheist than a Christian.
catalysthiphop 1 year ago
@catalysthiphop Why? Christians need to beliee in some old book. Atheism, you just think that a diety doesnt exist. Simple as that,
And why do atheists try to prove that a diety doesn't exist? Because some people try so hard (and sometimes it works) to embed Christianity into our lies, via politics, laws, ect.
But really, you got to ask an actual atheist. I'm just an agnostic.
laurayu70 10 months ago
@catalysthiphop
Because Children are being brainwashed into the Christian lie, because there is a preacher who wants to make a list of all atheist so that they can be boycotted and ostracized, because politicians are making decisions based upon an ancient book instead expert scientific advice, because Christians keep injecting themselves into our lives by protesting random harmless events (IE: Dancing), because Christians are full of hate and bigotry and it shows.
AtheistExplains 5 months ago
@AtheistExplains spot on mate i agree with everything you say
melglen1 4 months ago
@AtheistExplains That is making some generalizations there, as well as some propositions that may not be true, and relating certain groups of people to the whole movement of Christendom, which implies that because part of it went bad the whole thing went bad, which is not necessarily true by consequence. That ancient book is also the most accurate and powerful book the world has ever seen. You would have to know quite a lot about this ancient book in order for me to take you seriously.
julianPGriches 1 month ago
Praise God! He's awesome and He made all things and people.
blacksheepgirl 1 year ago
@blacksheepgirl no no no,prais the invisible leprachaun HE made everything and all people! or was it the great pink unicorn? NO i'm totally wrong it was the invisible dragon living in my garage! how could i ever doubt it? ..........there is no god,get over it!
peredebeeste 1 year ago
@peredebeeste It is true. I will not get over it. I have faith. I hope one day you'll believe too. That's the last thing I have to say.God is awesome!
blacksheepgirl 1 year ago
@blacksheepgirl i am trully sorry to hear that! i don't get it,how lost must you be to believe in an invisible skygenie? modern man has the oportunity to rid himself of these ilusions true reason and common sence,why do so manny people keep believing these lies?
peredebeeste 1 year ago
@blacksheepgirl faith = stupidity and ignorance, and yes u certainly have a lot of that.
umbukta 1 year ago
@umbukta Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
blacksheepgirl 1 year ago
@blacksheepgirl yet more foolish claims by a foolish person. get educated, and realise that you've been brainwashed and conditioned into thinking in the most narrowminded and dumb way. stupid stupid religious people.
umbukta 1 year ago
WE are the moral law givers.. damn creationists are so insecure, they're like: "I can't decide what's best for myself, so there must be a being which does that for me..."
LanteanKnight 1 year ago
Ur "accent" is atrocious dude!
:(
J0ker4u 1 year ago
What most people dont realize is, that Darwin repented on his knees, about everything he taught regarding evolution and humbly received Christ as his personal savior. He lived in misery for 20 years before repenting of everything he taught. You will notice that THIS is not taught in the universities. Sad, that so many people are still deceived by the doctrine he taught.
Motleyclimber 1 year ago
@Motleyclimber This isn't taught in universities because it isn't true. Darwin's thoughts on his own theory are well known (through his published works and correspondence) and they don't include some last minute reversal of opinion. We even know what he said on his deathbed because his wife saw fit to write it all down in her diary. I'm curious what your sources are on this and why you believe it so adamantly.
jussts 1 year ago
PS: Also, as I'm sure it's been pointed out to you before, the validity of this theory would not be impacted one bit by "repenting" of it. He was a scientist not a prophet. His theory stands on its own.
jussts 1 year ago
@Motleyclimber so what? what darwin did or did not do makes no difference to what's really true. maybe one day i will get scared and pray to god. maybe that's a natural human reaction. so what? it changes NOTHING, u fool. get educated. realise that there is no reason to believe in trolls, gods, goblins or unicorns. u r a fool to live in todays technologically advanced society and still believe in myths based on ZERO evidence and ZERO logic. stupid stupid religious ppl.
umbukta 1 year ago
Thunderf00t and Ravi Zacharias:
a smug cunt talking about another smug cunt
signed, the king of smug
festyosemtex 1 year ago
time and time again i show you proof of my point
you offer GAWD done it..god can do anything...well so could darwin it is a secret us evolutionists have been keeping from you bibleists..Darwin really created the earth and he can do anything he wants.f you dont follow darwin you will get put in a pot of boiling water after you die
alltiedup217 2 years ago
Comment removed
punchymills 2 years ago
I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."
alltiedup217 2 years ago
unless you mean the one with bones are tubes of bronze...so a Bronze dino with hollow bones...let me guess im out of context again you always right everyone else is wrong...smack spanked again
alltiedup217 2 years ago
Dude, it's called hyperbole...you'll probably need to look that up. Job is making a description to show how big and powerful the creature is. I guess you take all writings literally. You're stretching fella:) Disregard that passage if you want, but you know just as I do, sitting there right now. that that passage throws a little wrinkle in your position. And i'm not the one who's right. I didn't make this stuff up. I'm just relaying information.
punchymills 2 years ago
"Disregard that passage if you want, but you know just as I do, sitting there right now. that that passage throws a little wrinkle in your position."
-As much as the mythical creatures in other ancient books do. On the other hand, modern science throws a sizable wrinkle in yours.
mstachife 2 years ago
"modern science" will change tomorrow:) it's funny how it always does. Real science actually agrees with the bible more and more each day. The bible is supported by science. It's a fallacy to think science and the bible are at odds. I could list a hundred things that science has done to prove the bible true.
I'm curious, how did Job in about 600 BC describe a creature that we today didn't know existed until about a hundred years ago?
punchymills 2 years ago
"Real science actually agrees with the bible more and more each day."
-You mean any pseudoscience that you think agrees with you position. It's sad that you disregard all evidence that shows your beliefs are false.
"how did Job in about 600 BC describe a creature that we today didn't know existed until about a hundred years ago? "
-It seems to me he might have been talking about an elephant. You're doing what most Christians do with the Bible, and picking out what you want to believe.
mstachife 2 years ago
Please show me "evidence" that proves my position wrong.
I don't think an elephant has a "tail like a cedar." unless Job was talking about a sapling. Keep disregarding his observation, but now I've already put it in your head and you have to live with this knowledge without an explanation of how it fits your world view:) sorry, this will haunt you all your days.
punchymills 2 years ago
"sorry, this will haunt you all your days. "
-No, it doesn't. If it did, I would have to believe in the Illiad and several other books with mythical creatures in them, most describing them in much more detail.
mstachife 2 years ago
No. The Iliad has no basis in real life events and never claimed to. Also who cares if that book described the creatures in more detail?! Those creatures ARENT REAL. Dinosaurs are. No sure where you're headed with that argument.
punchymills 2 years ago
"Those creatures ARENT REAL. Dinosaurs are."
-And how do you know the "leviathan" was a dinosaur? The only thing you've argued is: "It's really big, has a tail, so it's a dinosaur!" How do you know that Job even wrote that, much less that we can trust it as a firsthand account.
mstachife 2 years ago
If you read the whole thing, he says quite a bit more than what you just claimed. If it wasn't a dinosaur, what was it? That's the point. And Job did write it, but let's say he didn't. At least we know a HUMAN wrote it. And he was watching an animal that has the description of a dinosaur. Oh wait. Maybe it wasn't a human that wrote it. Maybe it was an advanced chimp. That would fit your theory. You are still left to explain, WHAT was it Job was looking at if not a dino?
punchymills 2 years ago
"WHAT was it Job was looking at if not a dino?"
-What about Grendel from Beowolf? And other creatures from ancient texts? How do you know Job's account wasn't just made up like others probably were?
mstachife 2 years ago
Have you ever seen a fossil of Grendel? If Job made it up then he got extremely lucky. I'm not sure what's not coming across about the fact that dinos are real and Grendel is not. You keep making the comparison, but logically the comparison doesn't hold because dino's do not equate to Grendel. Apples and oranges.
punchymills 2 years ago
"Please show me "evidence" that proves my position wrong."
-That's like me trying to prove a flat-earther wrong. I've pointed out several flaws with your "hypothesis"; if you want to see more and look at some of the overwhelming evidence for my position, look it up. Most of the pro-evolution sites actually back up their claims with scientific data, unlike pro-creation sites that simply just assert things and say they're true.
mstachife 2 years ago
If my position was wrong, you should be able to point out something about it.Your "flaws" are simply assumptions about what couldn't have happened because you say so.Ive got a biology degree from a major university and know that what they teach isn't accurate.There are many things in their text books that have been proven wrong years ago.Also apparently, you've never been to the Creation Museum.I dare you to walk through it, read all the science in there and then attempt to make these arguments
punchymills 2 years ago
"Ive got a biology degree from a major university and know that what they teach isn't accurate."
-And I'm guessing you're right and all the stupid scientists who have spent their lives studying the subject are wrong?
"Also apparently, you've never been to the Creation Museum.I dare you to walk through it"
-No, but I saw a documentary of it and laughed until my eyes bleed. Seriously, dinosaurs playing with children..? I though you went to a university.
mstachife 2 years ago
No. these aren't my theories. Other scientists have recently proven a lot of that material wrong. For example, the illustration of the stages of a human embryo next to that of a chicken embryo showing they are identical. Ever see that in a text book? Well it's a know fact today that the original artist admitted he fudged the drawing and today's scientists don't accept it. But it's still in text books right now. That's one example.
Of course you laughed. That's your defense mechanism.
punchymills 2 years ago
When people are presented with facts and have no answer for them, they too laugh and walk away because there's no other option.
Facts are pesky little things huh? Throws holes right in your theory. I dare you to go observe the science within the museum. Laughing at a documentary because you'd rather not face the evidence within, isn't very diligent. That's simply the stage of denial.
punchymills 2 years ago
"I dare you to go observe the science within the museum. "
-Because it's not science. All they (and you) are doing is taken research that has already been done by real scientists, and twisting it to fit your hypothesis, and discrediting anything that you can't fit as "bad science".
mstachife 2 years ago
Ha. "It's not science." KEn Hamm has more science degrees and is touted as more credible than most scientists alive. He'll smoke anyone in a debate, he already has. If you go look at the museum or read any of Ken Hamms stuff, you'll undoubtedly know it's science and you won't be able to argue. I'm guessing though that you'd rather turn a blind eye on this one. The only science I discredit is science that's already been proven wrong.
punchymills 2 years ago
"Ken Hamm has more science degrees"
-He has a bachelors in Applied Sciences, and is dismissed as a retard by almost anyone with any credibility. Of course he touts the garbage in his museum as "science", that's where his paycheck comes from. He also had a lawsuit filed against him from a different creationist group for disorderly conduct/ focusing on money.
mstachife 2 years ago
"For example, the illustration of the stages of a human embryo next to that of a chicken embryo showing they are identical"
-No, I haven't seen that in any textbook. I highly doubt any newer ones have that in them.
mstachife 2 years ago
I agree here. Newer ones probably don't have it in them because it's been made a big deal, although I can't be sure. My point is though that that evolutionary concept was taught for decades after it was proven false.
punchymills 2 years ago
Though the original drawings were forged to a certain extent, the resemblance is actually quite striking. Our nearest ancestors look very much like us, more so than very distant ones, like evolution would predict (a human embryo doesn't really resemble a chicken embryo much, but it does resemble chimp embryo's). However, on celular and genetical level, identical functions and genes are active that are the same in huge orders of animals, even ones that don't resemble eachother use the same genes
Waranoa 2 years ago
So wouldn't it make sense that the same Designer made all these since He merely used some of the same parts?:) For example, Buick Lesabre lugnuts fit on a Buick regal. Same designer, same parts. That's not unusual and wouldn't be in this case. I agree.
punchymills 2 years ago
The fact that under the same conditions, which appear by themself without help from outside (the lab condition is a recreation of a natural state, there is nothing 'being' created), life follows automatically everywhere in the universe, would mean the universe is lawful and constant and would argue against magical intervention by an entity. What you are saying is technichally possible but it is impossible to proof or falsify, therefor it is not possible to know if it's true, ever.
Waranoa 2 years ago
The lab condition is not a recreation of a natural state. It's a SPECIFICALLY intended attempt to recreate what you THINK the state was like. Very different from chaos producing order by chance. Have you ever experienced chaos produce order without outside intervention? No. Therefore, that logically implies a designer, unless we aren't talking logically here.
punchymills 2 years ago
"Very different from chaos producing order by chance. "
-Are you claiming we live in an orderly universe..?
mstachife 2 years ago
You exist, don't you? We have a solar system, don't we? That's order. Everything naturally wants to move toward disorder on it's own.....unless something created order.
punchymills 2 years ago
"We have a solar system, don't we? That's order. "
-How many times has this planet been hit by asteroids? Which is another thing I think disproves your claim (Iridium in certain layers of the Earth's crust).
mstachife 2 years ago
Not sure where you are headed with that argument. Being hit by asteroids proves disorder?
I do recall watching a documentary debunking the iridium argument though. I'll have to find it. I don't recall the iridium argument and I don't recall the rebuttle.
punchymills 2 years ago
"I don't recall the iridium argument and I don't recall the rebuttle."
-Because I just came up with it, it's a problem I see with a 6,000 year old universe. If there is one, I haven't read about it.
mstachife 2 years ago
Ha! You can't come up with your own theories...unless you want to enlist the help of scientists and do some research.
I did watch a video explaining iridium though. It was a sensible and well supported explanation. But I don't remember where the source is. Now you got me wondering where I can find it. If I waste a day of my life looking, I blame you:)
punchymills 2 years ago
Ok quick iridium response coming. I'm testing this because it won't let me post. One moment.
punchymills 2 years ago
In at least one case the iridium would have taken half a million years to cover the earth by evolutionary counting.More likely is that the iridium enrichment came from volcanic activity not outer space.Volcanoes do produce iridium and spread it out
punchymills 2 years ago
True. And believe it or not, that's what one group of paleontologists believe happened. But what about the impact craters, such as on the Yucatan?
mstachife 2 years ago
More details on that please. I'm not sure what you are asking.
punchymills 2 years ago
Quick iridium reply coming. Let's see if this will let me post.
punchymills 2 years ago
I g2g for a bit so my response might be a bit late ;)
mstachife 2 years ago
No worries. I have a busy life as well. Typically I take a few minutes at work between project downtime to do this:) or else I won't have time.
punchymills 2 years ago
The condition in the lab was artificially created but resembled an early earth. It was molecularly very simple and there was no trace of life, not even of the building blocs of life was there a trace. But in a short time, molecules very similar to amino acids formed. Under the right conditions, heat, pressure, and molecules present, a random electric discharge can create complex molecular structures from simple ones. Imagine what this might lead to during billions of years!
Waranoa 2 years ago
I understand all the elements of this theory and can take hours pointing out the flaws. Everything you stated is an assumption that was created to fit your conclusion. THere is no evidence that this is how it was. You say "resembled an early earth" which is the first assumption that leads to the rest.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills please you and the assumption no one does it more than people that read the bible
you assume adam and eve had more kids.you assume there was a global flood
you assume 6 days ment 24hr days you assume you are right and everyone else is wrong,you assume all forms of radion metric and carbon dating are wrong.you assume everyone really believes in god,
alltiedup217 2 years ago
Adam and eve had more kids. The bible even names some. Do you think the bible has room to name every detail like all their kid's names? God says in the bible not to throw common sense out the window.
The bible stated the flood was global.
The bible also stated that day means day. If you study the Hebrew, yom means literal day and is used to mean literal day in other places of the bible in which on one questions it's meaning.
Radiometric dating is already shown inaccurate.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills what radionmetric dating there are several methods used?
The bible is wrong about the global flood
how could the day be a day with no sun????thats stupid
alltiedup217 2 years ago
Ok. I guess you know for sure there was no flood. Were you alive during the supposed flood time?
Also, God created the day with no sun. There was a light, but we weren't told where it came from. God can do what He wants man, he made the place:)
It's only stupid to you because you rely on the limitations of your human brain for the answer. God is a bit smarter than us son.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills well as a matter of fact I do know there was no flood.Like my dad says Christain have an answer for everythnig and if they don't there more than happy to make one up.that whole gawd done it is lame everytime Christain get backing into a corner ther whip out that old jem.Why not just say you dont know.
alltiedup217 2 years ago
Oh you do know there was no flood? Interesting. And yes, that is our answer because it's true. Do you think that God is going to let us in on all His thoughts and reasons? Face it. You are human just like me and have no business playing that game. We are weak and stupid compared to God. Sorry to burst the bubble. THinking that humans have the answer for everything is simply egotistical, which is essentially why people refuse to believe in God in the first place....their ego's run a muck.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills thinking humans are the ones that dont believe in god.I have read book by people who were smarter than you sorry to burts your bubble but you will never know the mind of a guy like hawkings .I never said I have all the answers.. you did ..but your right it is egotistical.
alltiedup217 2 years ago
Well there are all kinds of people who know more than me on all kinds of subjects. correct. It's foolish even for the smartest guy to think he knows more than God. His knowledge is worthless. I didn't say you were egotistical, I said the reason people don't believe in God is because they refuse to think that there is something "higher" than themselves. People want to be the apex of knowledge for their own glorification. It's a blow to the ego to think someone else owns us.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills I did say you were egostistical ,mostly because of all the god stories you say your is right.Anyone that thinks diff is wrong, or has been duped..I find that somewhat egotisitical.His knowlege is useless..so i guess the light bulb computro medical advances are useless?kind of a silly thing ta say.
alltiedup217 2 years ago
As a Christian I've submitted to the fact that there is a higher authority than me who is more powerful and deserves my praise.That doesn't seem egotistical to me. Also, I've stated a hundred times that Christianity isn't MY idea so I can't take credit for it....therefore, I'm not boasting about MY ideas.
I didnt say the inventions you mentioned are useless.They fall within the wisdom of the bible: they arent contradictory.What I was saying is that human ideas outside of God are worthless
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills the light bulb and computors are in the bible...the earth being round..that not in the bible..I should say the earth being a sphere and that it goes around the sun,antibiotics..I missed that part in the bible.Or maybe it does in the hebrew version of the bible that you read.
alltiedup217 2 years ago
the earth being suspended in the sky...that's in the bible. Hmmm how did Moses know?
Anyway, clever. You missed my point. Those ideas don't contradict the bible. They are within its limits. Now evolution from rocks to people, that contradicts the bible and is a manmade idea. I hope that's clear.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills strange you used evloution to make your point about mutation..guess you must have been wrong then.On a side note evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life that abiogenesis,I'm sure you know that.Abiogenesis never said we came from rocks..that the bible that said we came from rocks...or dirt..or dust whatever.the earth is not suspended in the sky..its in space and orbits around the sun..not in the bible but still the truth.
alltiedup217 2 years ago
microevolution is true. evolution from one kind to another is not.
Evolution automatically implies there must be an origin somehow, or else do evolutionists just ignore that issue altogether? "Yeah, organisms change but we don't know how they got here"
And you don't think the earth is suspended in the sky? I guess we're being held up by atlas then:)
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter?
What is the Earth suspended from?it implies that there must be something its suspended from or do you just ignore that issue altogether?
alltiedup217 2 years ago
I don't know to which statement your first question regards.
Suspended doesn't mean FROM anything. You ignore the fact that he knew the answer. Takes a great deal of twisting to the definition of "suspended" to ignore the fact.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills micro v macro ask them what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter.I guess your different than me I hear suspended I think it suspended from something I hear sky I dont think outer space takes a great deal of twisting to the definition to ignor the facts
alltiedup217 2 years ago
many things prevent micro from becoming macro. But without getting into hours of writing, have you ever witnessed it? That should tell you alot.
Also, a fish can be suspended in water just as the planet is suspended in the sky. physically not in the same way, but the concept should make it clear.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills as far as have I witnessed it ..um ya humans cant mate with monkeys but we share 93% genetic make up with them.
alltiedup217 2 years ago
Good then we agree. and 7% difference in dna is huge comparatively. Like I said a Designer uses a lot of the same parts for his designs because they work. It doesn't mean we came from monkeys.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king "saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth ... reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds."
alltiedup217 2 years ago
fantastic!
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills so suspension bridge you think floating in the sky..you hear sky you think outerspace..
alltiedup217 2 years ago
different definitions dude.....you're trying awefully hard to dismiss the text. It's used poetically. Also, I haven't looked at the Hebrew text. I'm sure the specific meaning is more clear and would satisfy you:)
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills again with the assumpitons,maybe the hebrew is more clear maybe its worse maybe it ay flat earth or that the erath dosen't move. but 7% is alot see what happens over time with small changes.
alltiedup217 2 years ago
no assumption. You're skirting the facts. moses knew about the earth when no one knew how the earth was positioned until recently.
And yes, we do see what happens over time with small changes. Wolves produce coyotes, dingos, foxes, blood hounds, beagles, poodles, great danes, etc. but NEVER anything else.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills talk about skirting the facts..the word circle means sphere even if there is a word for hebrew that means shpere.I looked it before you run to that old jem.Why not say shpere if you think that the shape of the earth.
Again facts what about all the transitional fossals,just want to ignore them dont cha.
alltiedup217 2 years ago
transitional fossils? hmmmm such as?
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills i just listed a bunch.Thye are called recessive genes ..they dont need legs so they "evolved"
alltiedup217 2 years ago
sorry, I didn't see whee you listed a bunch.
Also use or lack of use, doesn't support dna changes. That's scientifically incorrect and a common mistake. If I worked out all the time and had big biceps, my offspring wouldn't necessarily automatically have big biceps.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills well you cant have it both way.if you belive nin mirco evolution or dont you,you talking again about small changes,you said you thought that was true.I never said anything about use or lack of use I just said whales have a recessive gene that ment at sometime in the past they had legs..there are countless other e.i. chickens have the gene to grow teeth.I listed the place you can go see trasitional fossils if you want to pay it no mind thats fine, but then dont fain ignorance of them
alltiedup217 2 years ago
Those are assumptions...."whales had legs" "chickens had teeth". There is absolutely no evidence for this. Can chickens grow teeth? You are all assuming you've identified something that is not seen. You say "recessive gene meant sometime ago they had legs". Says who? Based on what? How do you know the gene is simply recessive? Don't two recessive genes display themselves? why not put 2 together and create a whale with legs? These "discoveries" hold no water.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills they are facts I can give you the page if you would like ..or you can lookit up for yourself.
alltiedup217 2 years ago
I'm honestly looking for these facts. Cant find em. For example, so what if chickens have the tooth gene? What does that prove? There are some other birds that used to have teeth, but they are still birds. I'm just not finding the proof you claim
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills it proves that things evolve ...???that they all were something completly different in the past.
alltiedup217 2 years ago
How do you get that from "chickens have the teeth gene"? All that shows is that chickens have the teeth gene. So? Maybe the chicken came from another bird that had teeth. Other birds are shown to have teeth. But somehow evolutionists take this to mean that chickens were once lizards. I guess I'm looking for the evidence that shows that chickens were once something else.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills ok lets try this again there called" transitional fossils" there are tons of them go look for yourself.
alltiedup217 2 years ago
I've seriously searched high and low and have found no transitional fossil worth its salt. I probably can't find them because they don't exist. If you gave me a resource I'd be happy to read it and think about it for a bit. Honestly, I don't think that lizard chickens are out there or something of the sort.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills well they do i list a bunch for the whale..What is worth there salt.try to put this much skepticism to the bible ,oh you cant the bible offers no evidence at all.Other than cricle mean sphere and you can see all of the earth from a tall tree.
alltiedup217 2 years ago
you have no evidence of what any of those fossils offspring looks like nor do you know if they even had children.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. Paleontologist Mark D. Uhen of the Alabama Museum of Natural History there is one place you can look
alltiedup217 2 years ago
Sure. Thanks. I"m curious to see the propaganda
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills again I ask you why is it that you dont think with enuff changes that after a great deal of time something can become something eles?We see it in the "fossil record" alot
alltiedup217 2 years ago
because we don't see it in the fossil record. Frankly, we don't even know that any given fossil your find ever had any children which stops the process right there doesn't it?
Encoded in genes is a certain amount of information. Bird can have short beaks, long beaks, white heads, red heads, small wings large wings but they didn't come from lizards. Nothing shows this.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills we do see it in the fossil record sorry if you want to ignore it find but there are there I have see um..if you have this degree you would have seen them as well.
alltiedup217 2 years ago
show me a lizard fossil and show me that it had offspring and that those offspring look like chickens. You can't infer a relationship just because it fits your theory.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills show me a full grown human baby that looks like an adult .Show me the one pic when they changed.
alltiedup217 2 years ago
EXACTLY!!!!! You can't use the fossil record or "still shots" to prove it. This is something that can only be confirmed by witnessing it. And frankly, WE DON'T WITNESS ANYTHING OF THIS SORT
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills umm so babies dont grow to be adults...
alltiedup217 2 years ago
yes. we WITNESS it. But we can't look at a picture of a baby and assume it grew up nor can we assume it had children when it grew up nor can we assume that the children were anything but children (human).
You can't infer something out of random puzzle pieces without any reason other than the fact that you want it to be true to fit your world view.
If evolution were happening, we'd see these transitions now. But the facts are the all species are pretty cut and dry
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills toothfairy LOL ..random puzzle.You think the same thing you just think it all happened in 5000 years.wolf to little dog 5000 years t rex to whatever 5000 years..was he on the ark speaking of the toothfairy.All these animals got off the big boat and evolved BUT ONLY mircoevolution.Because macro is impossable because god says so.You call those facts.
alltiedup217 2 years ago
do you think noah would put full grown animals on the ark? eggs and babies perhaps:)?
Ok, so we both agree that Christianity and evolution are religions that require belief. I can deal with that. Fact is that evolutionist are just modern humans looking for an alternative to God because they can't face Him in their sin. There's no real basis for it otherwise.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills eggs and bibies sound like you makin an assumption story called the bible has no agenda ya right and there is no such thing as a evolutionist...its a made up wordpeer review is garbage whatever again your assumption based on what??? your Christain agneda.cant face god I dont belive in god you can think I do all you want again another of your assumptions.
hey pot your black
alltiedup217 2 years ago
It's a reasonable conclusion. You similarly stated the ark held a full grown trex as proof to the contrary
Heres my bible "gap filling assumption.
-The ark held young adults,babies and eggs instead of old large creatures to fit all the animals and to repopulate the earth-reasonable conclusion
Heres evolutionists assumptions to fill the gap
reptiles eventually turned into birds although we dont know specifically how nor have we ever seen this happen nor do we see any transitions anywhere
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills that is what you call a straw man
So again you make a reasonable conculsion fine ..why is it if science makes one its wrong?
Again there is not such thing as an "evolutionist"they do know how things went from one thing to another I posted Several e.i. for you..you said they weren't worth salt??the bible says nothing about babies or eggs would love to know how an eeg made it way to the ark or a baby.I do see the problem with 2 of every full grown animal on a tiny boat
alltiedup217 2 years ago
No evolutionists don't know how things went from one to another. It's a guess and isn't observed.
Ok probably not eggs. I was answering in a hurry. More likely children and very young adults. Would you start a new colony with two old people or two young teenagers? That's easy.
And Noah didn't need as many animals as you think. 2 dogs led to coyotes, beagels, hounds, wolves etc. 2 birds led to pigeons, ostrich, flamingo etc. Here is where I agree with what evolution can do.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills it is observed over and over again only bibleistis dont belive this simple fact.species with less than 20 members dont make it ,that is an observed fact.
you agree mircoevolution is right but how could it be it is a peer reviewed thoery and peer review is crap right?
but do tell how many animals were on the ark?
alltiedup217 2 years ago
Ok let's use 'your fact' to uphold 'your logic.'
If a member of a species mutated to form another species, that species would only start with ONE member. But miraculously we get thousands of members? Wait, unless somehow 50 members mutated with the same gene all at once.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills again you make tone of assumptions why do you do that ,you seam to have a real proplem with other that you claim do that..mutations take a long time so at one point you have something totaly different but a common ancestor.like an ostrich from a dove..maybe a million years ago a small lizard made the small change and started to grow down.then after feww 1000 years or so feathers then started to fly a 1000 years later.or small dove becomes giant flightless bird.
alltiedup217 2 years ago
Your whole statement is an assumption with no evidence. I read fairytales to my daughter at bedtime. This will be a good one. Lizards that grow feathers. I've seen that!
If a lizard did miraculously grow feathers, when it mated, did all the offspring have feathers? Was it a positive trait that was selected for? If so, why would feathers on a lizard be beneficial? Of course these are all hypothetical because it can't and didn't happen. Do lizards have a feather gene that we can activate?
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills and tell me how do you get a ostrich from a pigion show me the transitional form..show me where that was observed
alltiedup217 2 years ago
Hmmmm I didn't say you get ostrich from pigeons. I was saying that they likely evolved from the same ancestor which is another BIRD, but a bird nonetheless.
If you are trying to say that ostriches and pigeons aren't related and evolution didn't happen, then I guess this discussion is over as you now have flipped your postion 180 degrees.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills I asked you a question that you have yet again ducked.Can you show me the transitional forms from lets say dove that was on the ark to ostrich.Something you say can only be done by guessing.
alltiedup217 2 years ago
no. which proves my point. fossils were created by the flood. anything that evolved after wouldn't become a fossil, therefore we wouldn't see it.
We can however, observe that birds can evolve into other types of birds. So this is an observed scientific fact.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills I made no statement I asked a question and you have ducked it 3 times now.Can you show me the transitional form from dove to ostrich.doesn't have to be fossil im sure they have found lots of other evidence.
alltiedup217 2 years ago
I believe I answered it above. the first part of my statement is NO followed by my reasoning. And it's not necessarily a fact that an ostrich came directly from a dove. I never made that assertion as a fact.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills 2 of every animal on the ark dove finds branch..dove becomes ostrich..can you show me a trasitonal form or not there should be lots of skelital remains,.
alltiedup217 2 years ago
Are you not getting my responses?
NO. NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS. WE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY FIND THEM SINCE FOSSILS CAME FROM THE FLOOD. IF THERE ARE TRANSITIONAL FORMS, THEY WOULD HAVE ROTTED AWAY. FOSSILS CAN'T FORM UNLESS THEYRE BURIED QUICKLY. THEY DECAY AND ARE EATEN ETC.
Besides, what's your point? Are you trying to prove that not even micorevolution is true?
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills LOL talk about bad science so you make the assumetion that the dove ans the ostrich are realated since by your own admission there is no evidence left.They decay and are eaten..Im tryin to show ..and did show that birds have a common ancestor in lizards
alltiedup217 2 years ago
Ok, so you are saying birds came from lizards and I'm saying birds came from birds. And I'm the one who's off track!
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills i was trying to show you that microevolution becomes macroevolution,,after enuff time the original speices becomes something totaly different..You have yet to show me how this is not the case.
alltiedup217 2 years ago
Hmmmm I don't need to show you it's not the case. You can't prove that it is. Never been observed, nor is there any evidence. All assumptions. We can wait to see if it ever happens. I have a feeling it will be a while
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills there are tons of sites that prove this point again do you think all the scienstist go to an athiest meeting and hatch plot to fool the world ???there write your wong.
alltiedup217 2 years ago
most americans buy cars by financing them. This is financially stupid. Consensus doesn't make ingorance all of the sudden brilliance.
No. there are not tons of sites that PROVE any of this true. I'll cut off my left arm if you can prove without assumptions or inferences that this is the case. Saying two things share dna or share features proves nothing except for that they share dna and share features no matter how much rhetoric is added to the discusssion.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills most people do buy a car by financing that is a fact ..if I was to say it was only your assumption you could show me the evidence..I could say well that evidence is colleted by people who hate banks so of cource they say that.
alltiedup217 2 years ago
not really a parallel example.
my point was that consensus doesn't make a bad idea a good one.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills radiometric dating is a FACT it had been proven correct countless times.Just becasue you like to say stul like assumptions means nothing you have no evidence to prove its not accurate..only your word based on you dont want it to be true.
alltiedup217 2 years ago
you can yell "IT"S A FACT" as loud as you want. it doesn't make it so.
How has it been "proven" to be a fact? Did you use radiometric dating to verify your initial radiometric dating was accurate? That would be the type of logic I've been hearing.
We know it's not true. All we have to do is send ya'll some cells of KNOWN AGE and check your results against it. You've shown us time and time again that those ages aren't even close
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills what method of radiometric dating are you sayin is wong?
funny when they date thing they do know the age of it works fine..and no one argues till the dating goes back more than 6000 years then all the biblisits go nuts
alltiedup217 2 years ago
Not true. many argue about it.
When Day old cells are dated between 3 and 5 million years old, does that seem accurate to you?
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills and the cells your talking about I think were the cells from seals and it was to check carbon14.You cant use carbon 14 to date something ..i.e sael because they build there own carbon.
FACT:
alltiedup217 2 years ago
Correct. Carbon 14 is the faultiest method of all but for some reason, ya'll use it.
I don't believe that was the same case.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills so what methods of radiometric dating are wrong why do you never answer a question..when did this day old cells thing happed..was it the seal thing is that what your talking about?
alltiedup217 2 years ago
which radiometric dating method do you want to discuss first? c14? Potassium Argon? All have the same fallacies. Rocks of known age <200 yrs from a volcanic eruption were dated to be millions of years old. Rocks a few feet apart had millions of years of difference in their dates. We still find C14 in diamonds, which are supposed to be millions of years old.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills that is not true you would have to show me those findings I have seen nothing of the kind.And for a guy who hates assumption you sure made a lot of them.You assume the only way fossil could get on the top of a muntain is a flood.you assume fossils could only be created by a flood.And you have never shown an inconsistencies you said there are but never offered any proof
alltiedup217 2 years ago
fossils can only form quickly. that's my positoin and a FACT. Flood is not the only way, but the most likely explanation based on the evidence. Getting buried over millions of years, however, is NOT a likely explanation.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills no no you said the only way fossils get made were from the flood..you allways back track,make up your mind.I never said getting buried over millions of years
alltiedup217 2 years ago
ok, then I misspoke the first time. My mistake.
They get formed by getting buried quickly, a flood would satisfy that criteria.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills and again i ask you what dating methods do you use or are used to support our claime that mt everest is only 5000 years old and all the fossils are the result ofthe flood?Or do you just assume all that true cause ya wanna?
alltiedup217 2 years ago
Never said I used any dating methods. Ive been showing you their inconsistencies for a while now.
Take an ancient text that we have no reason not to believe and have thousands of verified claims. Take a fossil record that could only exist by way of instant burial aka flood, take the fact that we find sea bottom sediments and fossils on top of mt everest etc. The story comes together. There is of course a bit more to it.....ie we find C14 in diamonds etc.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills A good point was just sent to me..If all the radiometric dating methods used were wrong they would have lots of different finds rather than the same wrong find.the fact that the results are the same shows they are write.And accurate.
alltiedup217 2 years ago
not necessarily. I didn't say the testing methods were erratic. In fact the testing methods can be consistent.
The issue is that you assume consistent rate of decay and that no material was lost by any other method previously to when you found it. So, in fact radiometric dating can be accurate and consistent for the same material because the conditions you experience in the present are the same when you use each method.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills ok again what method of radiometric dating are you talking about there are over 40 that use serveral diff isotopes??so how can they all be the same what thety are looking at the decay rate of totaly diff things?
alltiedup217 2 years ago
they all make the basic errors. Do you really think that a piece of rock has the isoptopes of all the materials used in each one? It's hard enough to find a rock that has radioactive isotopes let alone enough to use each method on the same piece.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills so again if no dating methods work how do you know the flood was 5000 years ago,not 6000 or 10000 or a million.but they do find rocks they do used diff methods and they all have the same findings..again do you think its an evil plot to fool bibleists
alltiedup217 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Flaws in radiometric dating is described in detail in many places.
We are tracing the flood age back from biblical timelines. Also, there is a dating method that is pretty accurate that actually backs it. I forget which one, but I'll have to find the reference. I can't remember every detail you know.
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills A key point is that it is no longer necessary simply to accept one chemical determination of a rocks age. Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs. Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other.
alltiedup217 2 years ago
seriously, do you believe that a bunch of isoptopes are in the same rock? You can get different ages from rock that's three feet apart. Your statement would be nice, but getting an age of 2-11 million years old and then another of 6-17 million years old isn't confirmation of accuracy just because times of millions of years overlap
punchymills 2 years ago
@punchymills last on my rant .if as you say all the fossils were created by the flood..why do we not find T-rex above people ..did no T rex make it to high ground why do we allways find them in about the same place all over the world.again you say the only way a fossil can be made is by water..??so then you would think ann the animals that can swim or run fast would have made it to high ground..and that is what the fossil record would show..it does not
alltiedup217 2 years ago
you don't know the specific habits of the animals. You can't tell that according to fossils. Who knows exactly where they were and how they lived? You don't. What we do find is mammals, those who live inland on TOP. You claim it's because they evolved last. I claim it's because they lived further from water. Some swimming animals likely survived the flood yes, hence why we have some "ancient" species still alive. Others were buried because huge amounts of sediment were washed into the ocean.
punchymills 2 years ago