Youwerecreated
VIP Member
- Nov 29, 2010
- 13,273
- 167
- 83
Creationists
- Thread starter cbirch2
- Start date
- Status
Youwerecreated
VIP Member
- Nov 29, 2010
- 13,273
- 167
- 83
those few disprove your creation story (I say story, as a theory has to have some basis in fact)
if the bible is acurate why was the t rex and all other pre biblical creation story life left out?
They were not left out. Did you expect them to use terms of today to explain them ?
Dinosaurs in the Bible
Youwerecreated
VIP Member
- Nov 29, 2010
- 13,273
- 167
- 83
Of couirse they will make comments that you agree with they are evolutionist but they admit to the problems why is that hard for you to grasp ?
Youwerecreated
VIP Member
- Nov 29, 2010
- 13,273
- 167
- 83
I refuse to keep repeating myself.
They don't make comments I agree with, they present facts that I don't deny and you do.
What problems? That the minority of fossils survive over time? That the Bible doesn't agree with it? That's the big problem?
daws101
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #1,567
lol!those few disprove your creation story (i say story, as a theory has to have some basis in fact)i never said there were no full body fossils
if the bible is acurate why was the t rex and all other pre biblical creation story life left out?
they were not left out. Did you expect them to use terms of today to explain them ?
dinosaurs in the bible
Make your questions clear and precise. We were speaking of species when you put your two cents in.
I posted an article the other day,it was from someone from your side of the argument that said 99.9% of all species have gone extinct.
Wow! #13 that I have seen where you reply to a post with something that has nothing to do with the post at all. Reducing environments and reactive species are terms that you learn early in a biology degree, though since I am sure you never got one, I am not surprised to find your knowledge nonexistent as usual.
Look, you do not know what you are talking about, you make up invalid definitions for words and try to disprove them on that basis, which is called lying. You either can't read or refuse to read anything but nonsense. You get almost everything you say wrong. the experiment was not about iguanas, it was about fruit flies and how you can with a little isolation and a different food source, get two groups that will no longer mate with the other which is the beginning of speciation and can be witnessed by everyone. That, not whatever nonsense you make up in your head, is macroevolution. The finch thing is also wrong because it was about more than beaks, it was about the finches not being able to breed with the original population anymore, which was actually not even known in Darwin's time.
Last edited:
LOki
The Yaweh of Mischief
- Mar 26, 2006
- 4,084
- 359
- 85
You refuse honestly answer, because you would then have to admit that there is no fact of objective reality and/or valid logic upon which to base your assertion that Yahweh, rather than Odin, is the Creator.
Indeed, if you were going to be honest and apply some intellectual integrity, you would be obligated to admit that Judeo/Chrisitan Creation "science" has objectively the exact same basis and validity in verifiable evidence and valid logic as the Creation "sciences" involving:
- El or the Elohim of Canaanite mythology (see Genesis creation myth);
- Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache;
- Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal components of the universe;
- Ptah creating the universe by speaking;
- Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology;
- Nanabozho (Great Rabbit,) Ojibway deity, a shape-shifter and a co-creator of the world;
- The goddess Coatlique in Aztec mythology;
- Viracocha in Inca mythology;
- Esege Malan in Mongolian mythology, king of the skies;
- Kamuy in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout;
- Izanagi and Izanami in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan;
- Pangu in Chinese mythology, who separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang);
- Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish;
- Vishvakarman in Vedic mythology, responsible for the creation of the universe (while in later Puranic period, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are for creation, maintenance and destruction, respectively);
- Rod in Slavic mythology;
- Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother in Māori mythology
LOki
The Yaweh of Mischief
- Mar 26, 2006
- 4,084
- 359
- 85
Debunking evolution? What a laugh!
Did you write that yourself? Because it's exactly wrong in every single way we've been proving you wrong; and wrong for the exact same misrepresentations of evolutionary theory, errors of fact, and logically fallacious reasoning we've been pointing out you've been applying all along.
Why don't you get a little intellectual integrity and level up?
LOki
The Yaweh of Mischief
- Mar 26, 2006
- 4,084
- 359
- 85
LOki
The Yaweh of Mischief
- Mar 26, 2006
- 4,084
- 359
- 85
Yes. Seriously. I'll say it again, RATIONALIZING.
As usual, you're absolutely wrong. "Rationalizing" is the correct term, and I am using it correctly.
And considering the dishonest cut of your jib, I wouldn't put it past you to bring your lame and invalid correction as a contrived attempt to equate the statements of invalid reasoning (rationalizations) you and YWC apply as being valid reasons (rationales) for your beliefs.
koshergrl
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2011
- 81,136
- 14,070
- 2,190
In other words, you don't APPLY a VERB.
Interestingly, I can't even find the word "rationalizing" in the dictionary.
Rationalize - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Interestingly, I can't even find the word "rationalizing" in the dictionary.
Rationalize - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
I think I'll take on some more of those 'science facts' from the Bible.
This is one of those passages from the Bible that get stretched to mean a modern scientific fact. This passage literally just asks which way is light parted? It's entirely mum on any sort of recombination, or that color even comes from different wavelengths of light. To be honest, I'm not sure where it's getting the "parting" from, or really even the combining. The recombining looks like the authors of this piece stretching the meaning of a single poetic line to mean whole swathes of scientific theory.
Sailors in antiquity had knowledge of coastal currents, but obviously not ones from the open ocean. This one isn't that valid either, I'm afraid.
Unprotected sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health. It didn't take the Bible for people to realize venereal diseases exist. The rest of this is moralizing against homosexuality and for monogamy. It doesn't take a genius to realize if you sleep with the same person, you chances of catching STDs go down.
This is one of those 'facts' which actually aren't valid explanations. It doesn't actually give a reason except 'God did it,' which is a fallacy filled 'God in the gaps' argument
Just because we don't know something, doesn't mean you can attribute to a god. There are lots of things we didn't know before, that we do know. I guess that makes a god an ever-receding pocket of ignorance.
Also, I dunno if we actually do know what the penis and vagina evolved at the same time. The above still applies regardless.
This one is funny to claim credit for. Considering the translation quote says incalculable, and that it stands to reason that there is a finite number of stars (there is, the universe also has a finite mass, i.e., an actual weight), you can't give credit for something that will ultimately proved wrong.
I'd also like to know where it gets the 5,000 stars visible bit. The ancients also witnessed one or two supernovas, and I can't find anything about how many they thought there were in the universe.
So it contradicts itself! First in claims it's impossible to count all the stars, and now it twists the passage to say it can! Not to mention the exact passage it quotes doesn't actually automatically mean finite, it could be easily be infinite based on Christian claims of what God can do.
This is the third time it's gone on about stars. See above for an answer.
False claims. Take a look what Christians did when they ran the planet. Go on. I'll wait. Take a look on the priests who are morally depraved because they touch little boys. "People of God" can be morally depraved as anyone else. Hell, the Scandivian countries are fairly atheistic, yet they seem to be doing just find in terms of happiness and law and order.
It isn't possible for the Flood to have happened, but mass extinction events do. The reasons its impossible are numerous. The Ark can't have possibly held every species. There isn't enough water to flood the earth completely. It isn't possible to repopulate most species from simply two members of it.
Isn't it funny that now you wish you use fossil evidence, but only when its convenient for you?
Fossils aren't from the flood. See above.
This is a massive stretch to say it predicts that. Those passages explicitly state how he separates the ocean from the land. It's entirely mum on anything concerning one super continent or plate tectonics.
Again, the Flood didn't happen. So there's no pointing arguing like it did.
THE FLOOD DID NOT HAPPEN. I stated way it's impossible above. Two, it's stretching the meaning of Bible passages again. Those passages only talk about ice and cold in general. There is no mention of a world wide ice age. Saying it said anything about the ice age is stretching the truth considerably.
This is still open to debate at where life starts. We still haven't decided. Taking a stand on an issue like that does not equal science fact.
It just says God makes us. It doesn't say anything about embryonic development. In fact saying God does it makes it false, we know how fetus' develop in the womb. Also, the womb was not unknown to ancient peoples either, so saying this knowledge comes solely from the Bible is wrong.
That's not what that passages means at all. It just says God already knows who a person is and what their actions are before they are born. Which is pretty in line with Christian teaching (predestination anyone?).
To say it means DNA is to completely miss what that passage actually means.
This is stretching it, almost certainly. Y-chromosomal Adam is simply the most recent common ancestor of all this. He wasn't actually Adam, and only got named that because of the Bible and people's preference for assigning pop culture to something like that. He didn't even live at the same time as mitochondrial Eve.
Also, don't people who object to evolution object to the fact of common descent from a gene pool? Didn't you say we were all created and not from a "slime mold?" Way to contradict yourself.
Of course evolution wouldn't teach that, that's the field of anthropology and linguistics. I'm not sure why we should expect people isolated from each other to have the same language, that's actually quite retarded to suggest, and poor evidence that that is evidence of the tower of Babel.
So, it accepts concepts from evolution, but only when it's convenient? What hypocrites.
Every ancient culture wasn't one based around the Judeo-Christian god. So the point is invalid by its own argument, the Bible has had nothing to do with.
These next twenty were more or less the same as the first. It involved shoveling scientific theory into whatever passage could fit the theory, stretching the meaning of passages beyond belief, and often times attributing to the Bible what is actually the credit of other non-Jewish societies. I'm surprised it wishes to use evolutionary concepts, but doesn't think evolution exists.
This is one of those passages from the Bible that get stretched to mean a modern scientific fact. This passage literally just asks which way is light parted? It's entirely mum on any sort of recombination, or that color even comes from different wavelengths of light. To be honest, I'm not sure where it's getting the "parting" from, or really even the combining. The recombining looks like the authors of this piece stretching the meaning of a single poetic line to mean whole swathes of scientific theory.
Sailors in antiquity had knowledge of coastal currents, but obviously not ones from the open ocean. This one isn't that valid either, I'm afraid.
Unprotected sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health. It didn't take the Bible for people to realize venereal diseases exist. The rest of this is moralizing against homosexuality and for monogamy. It doesn't take a genius to realize if you sleep with the same person, you chances of catching STDs go down.
This is one of those 'facts' which actually aren't valid explanations. It doesn't actually give a reason except 'God did it,' which is a fallacy filled 'God in the gaps' argument
Just because we don't know something, doesn't mean you can attribute to a god. There are lots of things we didn't know before, that we do know. I guess that makes a god an ever-receding pocket of ignorance.
Also, I dunno if we actually do know what the penis and vagina evolved at the same time. The above still applies regardless.
This one is funny to claim credit for. Considering the translation quote says incalculable, and that it stands to reason that there is a finite number of stars (there is, the universe also has a finite mass, i.e., an actual weight), you can't give credit for something that will ultimately proved wrong.I'd also like to know where it gets the 5,000 stars visible bit. The ancients also witnessed one or two supernovas, and I can't find anything about how many they thought there were in the universe.
So it contradicts itself! First in claims it's impossible to count all the stars, and now it twists the passage to say it can! Not to mention the exact passage it quotes doesn't actually automatically mean finite, it could be easily be infinite based on Christian claims of what God can do.This is the third time it's gone on about stars. See above for an answer.
False claims. Take a look what Christians did when they ran the planet. Go on. I'll wait. Take a look on the priests who are morally depraved because they touch little boys. "People of God" can be morally depraved as anyone else. Hell, the Scandivian countries are fairly atheistic, yet they seem to be doing just find in terms of happiness and law and order.
It isn't possible for the Flood to have happened, but mass extinction events do. The reasons its impossible are numerous. The Ark can't have possibly held every species. There isn't enough water to flood the earth completely. It isn't possible to repopulate most species from simply two members of it.
Isn't it funny that now you wish you use fossil evidence, but only when its convenient for you?
Fossils aren't from the flood. See above.
This is a massive stretch to say it predicts that. Those passages explicitly state how he separates the ocean from the land. It's entirely mum on anything concerning one super continent or plate tectonics.
Again, the Flood didn't happen. So there's no pointing arguing like it did.
THE FLOOD DID NOT HAPPEN. I stated way it's impossible above. Two, it's stretching the meaning of Bible passages again. Those passages only talk about ice and cold in general. There is no mention of a world wide ice age. Saying it said anything about the ice age is stretching the truth considerably.
This is still open to debate at where life starts. We still haven't decided. Taking a stand on an issue like that does not equal science fact.
It just says God makes us. It doesn't say anything about embryonic development. In fact saying God does it makes it false, we know how fetus' develop in the womb. Also, the womb was not unknown to ancient peoples either, so saying this knowledge comes solely from the Bible is wrong.
That's not what that passages means at all. It just says God already knows who a person is and what their actions are before they are born. Which is pretty in line with Christian teaching (predestination anyone?).
To say it means DNA is to completely miss what that passage actually means.
This is stretching it, almost certainly. Y-chromosomal Adam is simply the most recent common ancestor of all this. He wasn't actually Adam, and only got named that because of the Bible and people's preference for assigning pop culture to something like that. He didn't even live at the same time as mitochondrial Eve.
Also, don't people who object to evolution object to the fact of common descent from a gene pool? Didn't you say we were all created and not from a "slime mold?" Way to contradict yourself.
Of course evolution wouldn't teach that, that's the field of anthropology and linguistics. I'm not sure why we should expect people isolated from each other to have the same language, that's actually quite retarded to suggest, and poor evidence that that is evidence of the tower of Babel.
So, it accepts concepts from evolution, but only when it's convenient? What hypocrites.
Every ancient culture wasn't one based around the Judeo-Christian god. So the point is invalid by its own argument, the Bible has had nothing to do with.
These next twenty were more or less the same as the first. It involved shoveling scientific theory into whatever passage could fit the theory, stretching the meaning of passages beyond belief, and often times attributing to the Bible what is actually the credit of other non-Jewish societies. I'm surprised it wishes to use evolutionary concepts, but doesn't think evolution exists.
LOki
The Yaweh of Mischief
- Mar 26, 2006
- 4,084
- 359
- 85
I understand that you teach children; the parents should be arrested for inflicting you on their children.
Open a dictionary, retard. Read the entry. Accept that English is not your first language.
And while you're at it, look up future active participle.
Last edited:
LOki
The Yaweh of Mischief
- Mar 26, 2006
- 4,084
- 359
- 85
What we have here folks, is an unambiguous example of the stolid denial of verifiable reality that characterizes faith. You see, here our little cupcake holds a baseless preconception about reality, and with the absolute, unassailable, arrogant, and sanctimonious certainty of faith, she refuses to acknowledge that she actually found "rationalizing" in a dictionary; she linked to it, ignored her incorrect notion of the term's primary meaning, and then declared it wasn't to be found.
ra·tio·nal·ize verb
\ˈrash-nə-ˌlīz, ˈra-shə-nə-ˌlīz\
ra·tio·nal·ized | ra·tio·nal·iz·ing
Definition of RATIONALIZE
transitive verb
1 : to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as
The lesson to be learned here, is that those who apply faith are correct only by accident; and even when unambiguously wrong, they will deny verifiable reality--the strength of that denial being the strength of their faith.\ˈrash-nə-ˌlīz, ˈra-shə-nə-ˌlīz\
ra·tio·nal·ized | ra·tio·nal·iz·ing
Definition of RATIONALIZE
transitive verb
1 : to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as
a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth>
b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>
b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Bigotry among young conservatives has (some) Republicans on edge- Started by odanny
- Replies: 3
-
-
Shock and disbelief at Houston airport as 36% of TSA officers call out of work: "This is insane"- Started by EvilEyeFleegle
- Replies: 11
-
Was President Trump correct that China will take over Canada?
- Started by DennisPTate
- Replies: 3
