Announcement

Collapse

Creation Science Rules

This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective.
Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed.
1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team
2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
See more
See less

Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

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

  • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    Do you know how to make rocks? Three things are needed.
    What would you say 'Billions of dead things buried in rock the world over' is evidence for?

    Stuart

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
      What would you say 'Billions of dead things buried in rock the world over' is evidence for?

      Stuart


      What was the question you asked?
      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



        What was the question you asked?
        I refer you to your post #752, addressed to no one specifically.

        Evidence:

        Billions of dead things buried in rock the world over.

        Do you know how to make rocks?
        And hence I responded with the question, what would you say 'Billions of dead things buried in rock the world over' is evidence for?

        So, what would you say 'Billions of dead things buried in rock the world over' is evidence for?

        Stuart

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
          Evidence says no global flood.
          It's not difficult to put two and two together.
          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
            It's not difficult to put two and two together.
            I agree.

            No interruption to ice cores or dendrochronology, no global flood.

            Stuart

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
              I agree.

              No interruption to ice cores or dendrochronology, no global flood.

              Stuart
              Yeah, pretending you're contributing to a sensible discussion with this nonsense exposes your bias terribly.
              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
                Yeah, pretending you're contributing to a sensible discussion with this nonsense exposes your bias terribly.
                And what would make the discussion sensible, and unbiased, in your opinion?

                Stuart

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                  And what would make the discussion sensible, and unbiased, in your opinion?

                  Stuart
                  It's pretty good when you're banned.
                  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
                    It's pretty good when you're banned.
                    Why is it good when I am banned?

                    Stuart

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                      Why is it good when I am banned?

                      Stuart
                      Since you haven't been able to answer even the most elementary questions I've asked you regarding the nature of evidence, and have been virtually silent toward them, I, for one, can't really tell that there's much of a difference between you banned and you not banned.

                      Were I in your position, though, I can't see why I should not consider it somewhat good to be banned, in one respect; for, at least that way, you could always talk yourself into believing that you really could answer the questions you'd been asked, if only you were not silenced by the ban. As it is, though--what with you being not banned, and free to post on TOL--you obviously can't get away with using the "the ban has silenced me from answering the questions" excuse to try to save face for your failure, to date, to answer any of the questions I've asked you.

                      Since you do not try to meaningfully, rationally interact with other people on TOL, you're basically the functional equivalent of a spam-bot. And, really, I can't see why it should ever be thought a bad thing for any spam-bot to be banned from making noise and taking up space in a forum.
                      All my ancestors are human.
                      PS: All your ancestors are human.
                      PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post



                        Since you do not try to meaningfully, rationally interact with other people on TOL, you're basically the functional equivalent of a spam-bot. And, really, I can't see why it should ever be thought a bad thing for any spam-bot to be banned from making noise and taking up space in a forum.
                        Interesting, see post #768 where stuu asked stripe a specific question. His response was a non response #769. If anyone is a spam-bot it is stripe, rather than stuu.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stripe View Post

                          Only in the sense that it uses their language instead of idea-neutral descriptions. It's a very semantic objection I raised.
                          Maybe so, however, even using their language, their own words and theories are self destructive to their own theories.

                          Even using their own language, they cause to themselves insurmountable obstacles to prove their own claims in their own language!

                          "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers." Acts 2:42

                          "Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind" Philippians 2:2

                          Pro scripture = Protestant

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                            Since you haven't been able to answer even the most elementary questions I've asked you
                            I refer you to my earlier response recommending that you not misinterpret a lack of motivation as a lack of ability.

                            Stuart

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                              Thus, no opponent of Darwinism should ever say that "evolution" happens.
                              Apparently you believe that evolution happens 'within kinds'. To be an opponent of evolution by natural selection from variations caused by random mutation (and related mechanisms) from common origins you would need to give just as detailed an explanation, with mechanisms and evidence, that explained how it is possible for all variation to be stored up in either two or seven pairs of members of every living species, and then unleashed to give the current distribution and variation we see today, with no evidence at all of a recent genetic bottleneck.

                              Are you really an opponent of Darwinism? On the evidence so far I'd say you are just a religious fundamentalist science denier with a desire for alt-facts for your religious lifestyle choice. It doesn't strike me as being a very healthy lifestyle choice, but of course I support your right to make whatever decisions you want about how you live your life, as long as it doesn't make life difficult for anyone else.

                              On the other hand you were being successful in the main point of creationism, to get religion taught in US schools, then that would be damaging and I would have to oppose that in solidarity with young people wishing to follow a career in science.

                              Stuart

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                                I refer you to my earlier response recommending that you not misinterpret a lack of motivation as a lack of ability.

                                Stuart
                                That's as useless and silly a thing for you to say as it would be for you to say, "I recommend that you not misinterpret a lack of motivation to walk on the surface of the sun as a lack of ability to walk on the surface of the sun". Since it's impossible for you to answer the questions I've asked you, it's impossible for you to be motivated to answer the questions I've asked you; so, as a matter of course, you must needs lack motivation to answer the questions I've asked you. Your lack of motivation does not somehow make your lack of ability magically disappear; rather, your lack of motivation is necessitated by your lack of ability.

                                What I interpret as your lack of ability is your lack of ability. You are forced to hide from even the most elementary questions about the nature of evidence.


                                All my ancestors are human.
                                PS: All your ancestors are human.
                                PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X