Why do Darwinists spend time debating with Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design?

[james bond]

I love how you ignore evidence and then declare victory. I don't have the patience to give you a High School level geology course. Maybe Google can help.

We were discussing the ages of ALL the mountain ranges and I provided that they were the same 300 myo caused by the global flood. Also, provided the simple experiment to show how the mountains were folded up due to plate tectonics. It explains how all the mountain ranges were formed by marine fossils on the seafloor and how the water came up from below to flood the surface, i.e. fountains of the deep. The one huge land mass called Pagea was broken into seven continents as described in the Bible.

We found thru my evo website that new and younger species of animals emerged from the flood.

In response, you provided nothing but two mountain ranges with supposedly different ages. It's cheap and flimsy like your sciene. I'm sick of your bogus claims, goobye.

 

[james bond]

Contradicts his own source. Belligerently oblivious. James Belligerivious.

How can I be "Belligerivious?" As ultimate victor, I'll claim victory that you did not know about evolution. You, alang1216 and Hollie can claim hollow victory on how it contradicts the Bible, but it doesn't. It just does not acknowledge the global flood and its catastrophic effects on the Earth (but it does mention the catastrophism). That's where the FALLACIOUS billions of years old came in. No billions of years means no evolution. I bet my everything on God and the global flood while you bet yours on evolution or evilution lies created by Satan.

Don't forget Carolus Linnaeus and his contribution.

 

[alang1216]

We were discussing the ages of ALL the mountain ranges and I provided that they were the same 300 myo caused by the global flood.

So the Flood took place 300 million years ago? Not very YEC of you.

It explains how all the mountain ranges were formed by marine fossils on the seafloor and how the water came up from below to flood the surface, i.e. fountains of the deep.

New wrinkle here. Where did this water come from?

The one huge land mass called Pagea was broken into seven continents as described in the Bible.

Does the Bible explain how or when Pangea was formed from older continental plates?

We found thru my evo website that new and younger species of animals emerged from the flood.

We did? I thought all species were created in the first 6 days?

In response, you provided nothing but two mountain ranges with supposedly different ages. It's cheap and flimsy like your sciene. I'm sick of your bogus claims, goobye.

Sorry to see you go.

 

[james bond]

I have to LMAO at the weak atheists here.

"Darwin was not the first naturalist to propose that species changed over time into new species—that life, as we would say now, evolves. In the eighteenth century, Buffon and other naturalists began to introduce the idea that life might not have been fixed since creation."

Early Concepts of Evolution: Jean Baptiste Lamarck

evolution.berkeley.edu

Prior to Darwin (as well as Hutton and Lyell), the evos believed origin of life and creation. Darwin just made up his lie and led people down the wrong path of evolution to EVILution. There you go. I suppose I can call it EVILution from now on lol.

ETA: If you need an example of SAF & POS, then just look at post #263. After awhile, one has to give up hope for someone like that.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Don't forget Carolus Linnaeus and his contribution.

So your gods start off as nothing, acquire mineral-hood, then plant,.. and finally angel status before fully "Being" gods? What a pain in the keister!

 

[james bond]

So your gods start off as nothing, acquire mineral-hood, then plant,.. and finally angel status before fully "Being" gods? What a pain in the keister!

As usual, you atheists are wrong. God starts off just where He is, but some of those below Him challenged Him and wanted His status as they thought they had powers like Him. As punishment, the went to a special place created for them. As for humans, I would think it means you die and then either become in the Realm of Being or the other place as per the Bible. Right now, we're in the Realm of Becoming.

 

[Hollie]

I have to LMAO at the weak atheists here.

"Darwin was not the first naturalist to propose that species changed over time into new species—that life, as we would say now, evolves. In the eighteenth century, Buffon and other naturalists began to introduce the idea that life might not have been fixed since creation."

Early Concepts of Evolution: Jean Baptiste Lamarck

evolution.berkeley.edu

Prior to Darwin (as well as Hutton and Lyell), the evos believed origin of life and creation. Darwin just made up his lie and led people down the wrong path of evolution to EVILution. There you go. I suppose I can call it EVILution from now on lol.

ETA: If you need an example of SAF & POS, then just look at post #263. After awhile, one has to give up hope for someone like that.

Yes. Biological evolution was beginning to be understood before Darwin.

Your notions of a flat earth was abandoned long before Darwin presented his comprehensive theory.

 

[james bond]

I'm sure you're looking to address how it is that a month long flood carved through hundreds of thousands of feet of rock ( the flat earth is very thick, apparently), but in the mean time, from the site you linked to:

"The timing of many evolutionary and geologic events on Earth has been determined through two complementary lines of evidence: relative dating and absolute (numerical or radiometric) dating. This evidence makes it clear that life is very old and places a timescale on the pace of evolutionary change, diversification, and extinction."

Did you notice the time scales used? How can life be very old?

You're just as flimsy as alang1216. Now, I wonder are you as cheap? I already explained the Bible does not mention the age of the Earth. The ages based on Biblical history was used to counter evolutionary age. Since everything is based on evolutionary age and long-time (which is wrong), the creationists have to play with the long time. However, if we go by the global flood creating the layers and not the lie of uniformitariamism created by Satan, then we understand evolution is wrong (and a lie) and that the history of the Bible fits very well into that of the global flood.

As for the religious parts, all of the people and animals/organisms in the OT were destroyed by a global flood and ended up in the layers that were created. They aren't millions and billions of years old, but where the animals/humans/organisms died. Don't the layers have names for them? The names have nothing to do with ages. The evos or evils made up the millions of years layers in order to explain the lie of evilution and scientists fell for the lie. Evilution is based on those atheist scientists papers such as the one I am showing with my Cal website.

Long story short is that the majority will eventually come to believe in the lie as predicted by God. After that, we'll just have to wait for His wrath to destroy us all. Then the believers and non-believers will rise again (Like zombies. No wonder the sci-fi/horror of zombies are so popular). However, the believers will experience The Rapture while you and the other atheists/sinners will experience:

 

[james bond]

Yes. Biological evolution was beginning to be understood before Darwin.

Your notions of a flat earth was abandoned long before Darwin presented his comprehensive theory.

Lol, it's just like your false belief in flat Earthers. After you die, then you'll realize that you were looking in the mirror at yourself as one of the flat Earthers. Being destined for the other place is a great persuader.

 

[Hollie]

You're just as flimsy as alang1216. Now, I wonder are you as cheap? I already explained the Bible does not mention the age of the Earth. The ages based on Biblical history was used to counter evolutionary age. Since everything is based on evolutionary age and long-time (which is wrong), the creationists have to play with the long time. However, if we go by the global flood creating the layers and not the lie of uniformitariamism created by Satan, then we understand evolution is wrong (and a lie) and that the history of the Bible fits very well into that of the global flood.

As for the religious parts, all of the people and animals/organisms in the OT were destroyed by a global flood and ended up in the layers that were created. They aren't millions and billions of years old, but where the animals/humans/organisms died. Don't the layers have names for them? The names have nothing to do with ages. The evos or evils made up the millions of years layers in order to explain the lie of evilution and scientists fell for the lie. Evilution is based on those atheist scientists papers such as the one I am showing with my Cal website.

Long story short is that the majority will eventually come to believe in the lie as predicted by God. After that, we'll just have to wait for His wrath to destroy us all. Then the believers and non-believers will rise again (Like zombies. No wonder the sci-fi/horror of zombies are so popular). However, the believers will experience The Rapture while you and the other atheists/sinners will experience:


View attachment 612718

That's an old, tired cut and paste image which typically accompanies your tirades aimed at the non hyper-religious.

Do your various gods approve of your behavior?

 

[Hollie]

Lol, it's just like your false belief in flat Earthers. After you die, then you'll realize that you were looking in the mirror at yourself as one of the flat Earthers. Being destined for the other place is a great persuader.

I guess your religion is the source of your self-hate, fears and superstitions?

No one is suggesting you can't embrace a flat earth worldview. That may be common among those at the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah.

 

[Grumblenuts]

As usual, you atheists are wrong. God starts off just where He is, but some of those below Him challenged Him and wanted His status as they thought they had powers like Him. As punishment, the went to a special place created for them. As for humans, I would think it means you die and then either become in the Realm of Being or the other place as per the Bible. Right now, we're in the Realm of Becoming.

"As for humans, I would think it means"
Wow. So you post stuff, don't even know what it means, yet remain convinced "you atheists are wrong." What we are wrong about?.. You can't even say. Good luck with that!

 

[james bond]

That's an old, tired cut and paste image which typically accompanies your tirades aimed at the non hyper-religious.

Do your various gods approve of your behavior?

Maybe the sign is repetitious, but it's a fave movie of mine. Every time I see it, I think of the evils/atheists here. Something they do is offensive. Is it as bad as eviseration? Yes (not in a physical sense but spiritual). But they'll never admit it.

"

Analysis​

In the years following its release, The Silence of the Lambs was subject to much film criticism regarding its themes of human sexuality and sexual politics.[11] Throughout the film, Clarice Starling's gender is emphasized as a distinguishing feature as she is a minority amongst her numerous male peers, though film scholar Barry Forshaw notes that "any feminist agenda is never bluntly formulated verbally."[12]

Some gay male critics and feminists felt that the film's portrayal of Buffalo Bill negatively associated the LGBT community with deviance, psychopathy, and violence.[13] Despite this, Bill's sexual orientation is never explicitly stated in the film, and Lecter expressly states Bill is "not really transsexual".[14] Demme responded that Buffalo Bill "wasn't a gay character. He was a tormented man who hated himself and wished he was a woman because that would have made him as far away from himself as he possibly could be." Demme added that he "came to realize that there is a tremendous absence of positive gay characters in movies".[15]

In a 1992 interview with Playboy magazine, the feminist and women's rights advocate Betty Friedan stated: "I thought it was absolutely outrageous that The Silence of the Lambs won four [sic] Oscars. […] I'm not saying that the movie shouldn't have been shown. I'm not denying the movie was an artistic triumph, but it was about the evisceration, the skinning alive of women. That is what I find offensive. Not the Playboy centerfold."[16]"

What did you think of the movie?

 

[james bond]

"As for humans, I would think it means"
Wow. So you post stuff, don't even know what it means, yet remain convinced "you atheists are wrong." What we are wrong about?.. You can't even say. Good luck with that!

Where do you get that I "don't even know what it means, yet remain convinced?" That's weird.

You are wrong about God not existing. That I am 100% certain. What I am also certain is that you'll suffer forever for it.

 

[Hollie]

Maybe the sign is repetitious, but it's a fave movie of mine. Every time I see it, I think of the evils/atheists here. Something they do is offensive. Is it as bad as eviseration? Yes (not in a physical sense but spiritual). But they'll never admit it.

"

Analysis​

In the years following its release, The Silence of the Lambs was subject to much film criticism regarding its themes of human sexuality and sexual politics.[11] Throughout the film, Clarice Starling's gender is emphasized as a distinguishing feature as she is a minority amongst her numerous male peers, though film scholar Barry Forshaw notes that "any feminist agenda is never bluntly formulated verbally."[12]

Some gay male critics and feminists felt that the film's portrayal of Buffalo Bill negatively associated the LGBT community with deviance, psychopathy, and violence.[13] Despite this, Bill's sexual orientation is never explicitly stated in the film, and Lecter expressly states Bill is "not really transsexual".[14] Demme responded that Buffalo Bill "wasn't a gay character. He was a tormented man who hated himself and wished he was a woman because that would have made him as far away from himself as he possibly could be." Demme added that he "came to realize that there is a tremendous absence of positive gay characters in movies".[15]

In a 1992 interview with Playboy magazine, the feminist and women's rights advocate Betty Friedan stated: "I thought it was absolutely outrageous that The Silence of the Lambs won four [sic] Oscars. […] I'm not saying that the movie shouldn't have been shown. I'm not denying the movie was an artistic triumph, but it was about the evisceration, the skinning alive of women. That is what I find offensive. Not the Playboy centerfold."[16]"

What did you think of the movie?

Odd that you spend your life looking for people to hate.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Every time I see it, I think of the evils/atheists here. Something they do is offensive. Is it as bad as eviseration? Yes (not in a physical sense but spiritual). But they'll never admit it.

You are wrong about God not existing. That I am 100% certain. What I am also certain is that you'll suffer forever for it.

Nothing triggers like refusing to believe the useless crap someone else believes.

 

[james bond]

Nothing triggers like refusing to believe the useless crap someone else believes.

Can't the same be said of you? If I am wrong, then you're let off the hook for any wrongdoing assuming you're not caught for it. If I am wrong, then you still can be caught and brought to justice in the real world. What makes you think I am wrong about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit when I am positive they exist?

If I am right, then you'll eventually pay for your sin(s) whether you are caught for your crimes or face the Creator at the end. Thus, it's not useless crap. Non-belief is a mortal sin or one that you will receive lifelong spiritual punishment.

 

[james bond]

Odd that you spend your life looking for people to hate.

Huh? All I can do is warn them. God warns. Satan tempts. What's hateful about that?

 

[Hollie]

Huh? All I can do is warn them. God warns. Satan tempts. What's hateful about that?

You have assigned yourself as a messenger of the gods. Such a weighty burden you bear. Did the gods require that you threaten the heathen as a part of your mission?

Was your assignment a function of voices you heard or direct communications from the gods?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Can't the same be said of you? If I am wrong, then you're let off the hook for any wrongdoing assuming you're not caught for it. If I am wrong, then you still can be caught and brought to justice in the real world. What makes you think I am wrong about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit when I am positive they exist?

If I am right, then you'll eventually pay for your sin(s) whether you are caught for your crimes or face the Creator at the end. Thus, it's not useless crap. Non-belief is a mortal sin or one that you will receive lifelong spiritual punishment.

And I've been attentive my entire life. Your ilk has yet to provide any compelling, evidence based reason for me to buy into your shit. Nothing personal, mind you. I think it's just what my momma said about shopping that's always stuck and never let me down.