Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    Why the quotes around the word, 'believe'?
    He's insinuating that the things he accepts as true should not be questioned.

    Otherwise, there's simply no reason to say belief has no place describing a response to a fact, quotes or no quotes.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
      Oooo... kay then...
      Going to quote the rest? Here let me help "...they are facts independent of whether I accept them or not. I will say I accept facts including the fact of evolution.
      "It is in love that we are made, in love we disappear..."Leonard Cohen

      Monsignor Ray McIntyre
      Anglican Church International
      Te Hāhi Katorika Tawhito

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
        Radiometric dating is based on MULTIPLE ASSUMPTIONS. What don't you understand?

        ASSUMPTIONS do not produce scientific results.
        There's way more to it than that as with other methods that correlate with the universe being old. You've had links provided and you're yet to debunk any given method, let alone radiometric dating even after having being invited to bring it to the table. If you're just gonna bluster without anything concrete to discuss then why even bother? Have you actually got anything?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by mtwilcox View Post
          I understand the theory fine; that’s how I know it’s not based on reality.

          Maybe this time you will address a couple of my questions.

          So, once again I ask you:



          Either evolution is true, or species of animals were originally created as they are today.

          I asked you to provide evidence that New species have arisen out of other species, and you have not.

          I gave you evidence that fossils of species of animals have been found which still are observable in nature today; which is evidence of God creating them originally in the forms we now see them today.

          This same evidence disproves the theory of evolution.
          Darwin suggested that animals are constantly in a state of change; if there are fossils of animals that are still living modernly, that is evidence against evolution.

          How do you explain the fact there are fossilized animals which people who entertain the theory of evolution believe are tens and hundreds of millions of years old; are still living modernly?

          I mean, if evolution is constantly changing species into new ones, how are there fossils of animals remainining anatomically unchanged today?

          =M=

          ==========================



          People who believe in fossil dating have fossils of this fish which they believe are over 400 million years old!!!

          If this fish has remained anatomically unchanged for that long; how can you believe man came out of a chimp like being in 3.5 million years?!?

          Also, if this fish has not changed in 400 million years, when wasn’t it a ceolocanth?

          In your opinion, does Evolution happen Fast, or Slow?
          Judging by this creature, I’d say it does not happen at all...

          There are many more examples that show Evolution does not occur.

          https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...lies-96882693/

          From Wikipedia:

          “Meganeura is a genus of extinct insects from the Carboniferous period (approximately 300 million years ago), which resembled and are related to the present-day dragonflies.”



          This fossil is obviously a dragonfly, and it contains all the same functional anatomy that modern dragonflies contain today!!!

          This fossil disproves the theory of evolution.

          If dragonflies looked exactly the same 300 million years ago; when weren’t they dragonflies?
          I mean, if they remained anatomically unchanged for 300 million years, evolution does not happen. This is the only logical explanation.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganeura

          There are also:

          Jellyfish

          https://www.livescience.com/1971-old...h-fossils.html

          Starfish

          http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42776719

          Bats

          https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/eutheria/chirofr.html

          So, explain to me Arthur: why do you believe in Evolution?

          I mean, it seems like these animals have remained the same species the entire time they’ve existed on earth...
          The fossil evidence supports creation, not evolution.
          Youtube videos don't "disprove" anything and I'll refer you to Alate One's rebuttal to you in your adjoining thread.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by mtwilcox View Post
            Also, djengo!

            Not to keep posting videos on your excellent thread, but, well...
            Here:

            =M=

            ============================

            How to know when you have won an argument:

            It's not an "excellent thread". It's predicated on a basic, schoolboy misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution is actually about...



            Most people, when corrected on such an error know well enough to let it drop.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by kiwimacahau View Post
              Going to quote the rest? Here let me help "...they are facts independent of whether I accept them or not. I will say I accept facts including the fact of evolution.
              I only quoted the part I thought was worth commenting on.

              Do you think you're special because you concede that facts remain true regardless of your opinion? Why was that important to say?
              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
              E≈mc2
              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
              -Bob B.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by kiwimacahau View Post
                I don't "believe" facts....
                Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                Oooo... kay then...
                He believes in a lot of stuff that isn't true, so of course he is correct. He "doesn't believe facts."

                He is a man without the Spirit unable to understand things of Him. He is pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality for example.
                My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                ? Yep

                Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                  There's way more to it than that as with other methods that correlate with the universe being old.
                  So does this mean that you are FINALLY conceding that radiometric dating in not one of those methods? i.e., is not a valid method for determining the age of anything.

                  Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                  You've had links provided and you're yet to debunk any given method, let alone radiometric dating even after having being invited to bring it to the table.
                  Stonewalling is a very weak way to "deal" with the problem. Please quit hiding.

                  Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                  If you're just gonna bluster without anything concrete to discuss then why even bother? Have you actually got anything?


                  This from the guy that hides from the facts of radiometric dating and runs away when facts are presented.
                  All of my ancestors are human.
                  Originally posted by Squeaky
                  That explains why your an idiot.
                  Originally posted by God's Truth
                  Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                  Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                  (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                  1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                  (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                  Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                    I got your goat merely by asking you to tell me what (if anything) it is for a housecat named Fritz to evolve. It embarrasses you, because, as you and I both know, you can't answer the question; you're incompetent to explain what (if anything) it is for a particular housecat (or Tom the tortoise, or Eliza the elephant, etc.) to evolve, and so, again, you act all snotty at me. I'm just the messenger, so why rail against me? You cherish absurdity and nonsense; I merely help you to see that what you cherish is absurdity and nonsense, and you gnash your teeth in anger at me for doing so, because you cherish your absurdity and nonsense.


                    • Does Fritz the housecat evolve? Yes or No?
                    • If so, when does Fritz the housecat evolve?
                    • What, exactly, is Fritz the housecat's evolving? Describe Fritz's evolving.
                    • Into what (if anything) does Fritz the housecat evolve?




                    You are livid--not so much because you cannot answer questions such as these as because they are asked of you in the first place, and you, put on the spot by them, demonstrate your inability to answer them by failing to answer them. How ridiculous for someone, like you, who loves to parrot the phrase, "the theory of evolution", to not even be able to answer such a fundamental question as to what it is for one, plain, old housecat, or Shamu the killer whale, to EVOLVE. Do you think that it is somehow not a basic, fundamental, essential requisite, for something called "the theory of evolution" to be able to say what it is for your pet dog to evolve?

                    It's interesting how much of an obsession you have for saying the word, "semantic". The game I'm playing, if you feel like calling it a game, is merely one of asking you to try to say what (if anything) you imagine you mean by the slogans you--because of deleterious mental conditioning--are in the habit, as a Darwin cheerleader, of parroting meaninglessly. Does not 'semantic' mean having to do with the meanings of words and phrases? Why you don't like me talking semantically to you is because you mean absolutely nothing by your fairy-tale Darwinism jargon, and, by talking semantically to you--by asking you about your fairy-tale Darwinism jargon, you are forced to expose--by your inability to answer my questions--your own incompetence to explain your jargon, and the vacuousness of it. I understand why you're angry; you're not justifiably angry, but I understand why you are angry.

                    Why saying that an opponent is semantical is so commonly considered to be pejorative, and is done with an intent to be pejorative toward that opponent, is an absolute mystery to me. One of the prominent features of your (and Arthur Brain's, and others') immense foolishness, as Darwin cheerleaders, is your manifest disregard for the question of whether or not you even mean anything by the things you say. One of your problems, as Darwin cheerleaders, is that not only are you not semantical about the slogans you chant, but you are downright anti-semantical....which is exactly why you keep on chanting the meaningless slogans you chant. You, Arthur Brain, and every other Darwin cheerleader, mean no more by words like "evolve", and "evolution", than a football stadium cheerleader would mean, were she waving pom-poms and shouting, "Give me an E, give me a V, give me an O, give me an L, give me a U, give me a T, give me an I, give me an O, give me an N, give me an exclamation point!!!" The difference is that she--the football cheerleader--wouldn't be so arrogantly stupid as to go about pretending like she really does mean something by it, as you, Arthur Brain, and every other Darwin cheerleader, pretend to do.
                    Oh, you definitely upset me with your dishonest games. I hope you are proud of yourself.

                    Fact 1: I have answered your silly questions. Quite clearly. Stop lying, if you are capable of it.

                    Fact 2: The theory of evolution has nothing to do with changes in individual animals or plants. It deals with populations.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                      So does this mean that you are FINALLY conceding that radiometric dating in not one of those methods? i.e., is not a valid method for determining the age of anything.


                      Stonewalling is a very weak way to "deal" with the problem. Please quit hiding.




                      This from the guy that hides from the facts of radiometric dating and runs away when facts are presented.
                      What "facts"? You claim that it's been debunked and where I ask you to provide the compelling evidence for that, all I've seen from you is exclamations and assertions. Provide the evidence that does away with it, otherwise you're just bloviating. You do have it don't you?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by chair View Post
                        Oh, you definitely upset me with your dishonest games. I hope you are proud of yourself.

                        Fact 1: I have answered your silly questions. Quite clearly. Stop lying, if you are capable of it.

                        Fact 2: The theory of evolution has nothing to do with changes in individual animals or plants. It deals with populations.
                        I'm not sure that it's a case of lying as such but more a desperate attempt to save face...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                          What "facts"?
                          The, at minimum, THREE assumptions that are the basis of radiometric dating.

                          All THREE of which are unverifiable.

                          You've dodged that about a hundred times.
                          All of my ancestors are human.
                          Originally posted by Squeaky
                          That explains why your an idiot.
                          Originally posted by God's Truth
                          Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                          Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                          (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                          1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                          (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                          Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                            The, at minimum, THREE assumptions that are the basis of radiometric dating.

                            All THREE of which are unverifiable.

                            You've dodged that about a hundred times.
                            Your assertions aren't evidence of anything. If I was "dodging anything" then I wouldn't have put up links that explain it in detail. You claimed it was debunked. So far, squat in rebuttal.

                            Comment


                            • There are many reasons to doubt the accuracy:

                              From:
                              http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html

                              Mainly the fact that there are variables that can change the results; such as gamma radiation, and so on. This would make the test results depict a longer time has passed.

                              =M=

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                                Your assertions aren't evidence of anything.
                                I'm not asserting anything. I've given facts that you ignore.
                                Last edited by Right Divider; October 9th, 2019, 01:11 PM.
                                All of my ancestors are human.
                                Originally posted by Squeaky
                                That explains why your an idiot.
                                Originally posted by God's Truth
                                Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                                Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                                (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                                1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                                (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                                Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X