Right Divider
Body part
You're either lying or outrageously dumb.
You start first. Show us how all things evolved from NOTHING and make sure that your evidence is contradicted by no other evidence. You won't be able to do that.
-
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.
Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!
- Thread starter ThisIsMyUserName
- Start date
As I told you earlier, I am only the messenger. What you choose to do with the message is up to you.
I'd have a go, but I'm still settling down from laughing at the absurdity of Mr. Brown's claim that a global flood happened a few thousand years ago because he says so, and for no other reason.
Your challenge is a Gish Gallop. All things from nothing? I've already given you the explanation for how there is anything, and how that anything could be thought of in terms of actually being nothing. Were you curious about that? No, all you wanted to do was to try and score points in your empty, mocking response. Far from it being the speaking with the tongues of men, I think it is the content-free babbling of creationists that shows they have no love and are the sounding brass and tinkling cymbals of 1 Corinthians 13.
Ask me a sensible question, or perhaps read some books.
Stuart
Right Divider
Body part
False as per your usual.
You are a liar... plain and simple.
Your belief system is based on a lie. It leads you to false conclusions.
I know what your post is evidence for.
Do you know how to make rocks? Three things are needed.
Right Divider
Body part
I know what your post is evidence for.
Do you know how to make rocks? Three things are needed.
- Matter
- Billions of years
- A cup of coffee
What would you say 'Billions of dead things buried in rock the world over' is evidence for?
Stuart
I refer you to your post #752, addressed to no one specifically.
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
It's not difficult to put two and two together.
Yeah, pretending you're contributing to a sensible discussion with this nonsense exposes your bias terribly.
:think: It's pretty good when you're banned.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
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.
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.
oatmeal
Well-known member
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!
I refer you to my earlier response recommending that you not misinterpret a lack of motivation as a lack of ability.
Stuart
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
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
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.