Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And to you, for saying frankly that your theistic evolution is based on faith rather than fact. Thus we have nothing to argue about. There is no attempt to debunk science, no attempt to make what is evidently mythological the replacement of 100 years of science and taking evolution out of the discussion, where it had no place anyway.
Now, how much reliance do you place on the gospel account?
P.s your point about the embryos was a neat one. Haeckel's early observations were not (as later evidence showed) always correct other than in broad terms. But the embryos still seems to be valid.
Creationism is not about debunking science, it is about debunking evolution as being based on science.
10-11-2017, 08:01 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
What is more enlightening is you lack of understanding that "axiomatic" is used improperly. The word means a recognized truth, a universally accepted principle or rule. What the article said is not universally accepted. That comment is used in place of presenting evidence to support his comments, because there is no supporting evidence, especially the kind he mentioned--empirical. The empirical evicence is what we see in "after their kind."
No, the point was that axiomatic/abiogenesis was not the point of the link. The link was dealing with evidence for macro evolution. None of it was dealt with by you. This is not about abiogenesis or what axiomatic means - another rabbit trail by the runner. Like I said your comprehension is abysmal.
Quote:
The terms in Genesis are general and distinct: sea life, birds, cattle, creeping thing, beast and man.
Whales always produce whales, Pakicetus always produce pakicetus, NEVER whales. Chickens always produce chickens, never dino's, cows always produce cows, apes always produce apes, never men. etc. That is what we always see and we never see any variation in the species. That is also true in plant life. Beans not only always produce beans, they always produe the exact same variety as the seed from which it came,
That has got to be the most useless drivel I have read on here. The terms in Genesis are all but worthless except for the clear teaching that whatever a kind is it can reproduce itself and reproduction is meant to maintain whatever that kind is. That is what Genesis teaches.
Man is an ape - hello! Your categorization is all over the place and has absolutely no rhyme or reason behind it. So 'sea life' is a kind yet 'whales' are a kind as well. This is non-sense. If all sea life is a kind then all sea life has common ancestor but if whales are a kind then all whales can't breed with one another - so how the hell does this make sense in your creo world? Clue - it does not make any sense. The truth is you have no clue what a kind is nor what the original kinds were.
Quote:
Speciation is true, but it never results in a change of species. In the ring species, the salamanders remained salamanders and the gulls remained gulls. The inability to reproduce does is not a change of species.
Unless you have a better idea than nothing can produce something, "God did it is the most logical explanation.
Actually the inability not to reproduce is exactly evidence for why we would call it a new species and it is exactly why it falsifies your creo story of reproducing after their kind. Why would god allow his kinds to diverge to the point where they cannot reproduce? Since the only clue we have, in Genesis, of what a kind is is that which is supposed to reproduce itself and since we actually have speciation where a reproductive population has diverged so as to not be able to reproduce this is exactly the observation that falsifies your creo story.
Where did you get the idea that I said anything about 'nothing can produce something?' Is this more creo BS lying? And no 'God' is not the most logical. In fact that is not even a good hypothesis as it has no explanatory power nor can it be falsified. It is as useless as your kind categories.
So you are still unable to reference a single published author who agrees with you about this? If it is a "no brainer" then why are you the only brain on Earth who sees this obvious fact? I guess all those physicists with PhDs have no brains?
First explain how you can say something is happening to something that can't be seen.
Quote:
I'm not asking for much. I'm just asking for a reference to one educated person who agrees with you about this.
Quote:
Plus, I'd really like to see you respond to the point I made earlier:
Those you consider experts divide the universe into "observable" and "unobservable." Only a fool would comment on something they can't observe.
If I didn't answer your earlier point today, I missed it. Make it aqain and I will respond.
10-11-2017, 08:23 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Actually it is those who say the universe is expanding without being able to see the outer edge are the ones with their head in the sand. You believe it because you want it to, not because of any evidence.
It is a no brainer that if you can't see something, you can't make a positive statement bout it.
Let's try this:
Omega - do you believe in the observational phenomenon of red shift?
If so, what is your explanation for this observation?
If not, why not?
10-11-2017, 08:31 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Only a fool would comment on something they can't observe.
Ironic! Now let's see if you are a hypocrite. Do you comment on God who you can't observe?
I simply cannot comprehend why he hasn't been banned.
He's blatantly trolling and is a complete waste of bandwidth.
10-11-2017, 08:40 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Creationism is not about debunking science, it is about debunking evolution as being based on science.
And that's why it is a crock of crap. You 'debunking' evidence for evolution does not to establish creationism. We could have zero evidence for evolution and this is not evidence for creationism. Arguments from ignorance are fallacious!
You have two options: 1) prove that evolution is impossible or 2) start to give your own evidence FOR creationism.
Omega - do you believe in the observational phenomenon of red shift?
Yes, iit as yu dsay, can e observed.
Quote:
[If so, what is your explanation for this observation?
I don't know enough about astronomy to have an explanation.
Quote:
If not, why not?
I know enough that light moving is not evidence of the universe expanding. You are trying to use something that can be seen with something that can't be seen.
Ironic! Now let's see if you are a hypocrite. Do you comment on God who you can't observe?
Wait for the BS responses people!
It is not necessary for me to see God to see His handiwork. I also have a written. record that He has inspired for me to know the truth. That is far different from man saying something is happening to something they can see.
The universe may be expanding, but matter moving is not evidence that it is.
When God declared His creation finished and very good, that implies the universe was as it will always be. There is no need for it to expand.
Amusing. I have engaged in this discussion or over 20 years and in that time no evo has ever produced any scientific evidence that supports evolution. Would like to be the first? I predict you will not.
The real ant poisoning is continuing to say something is true without any supporting evidence.
I can't be responsible for what other creationist believe. If they want to believe the universe is expanding without any evidence, that is their problem. If you want to believe you can tell something about what you can't see, I call that being gullible.
Most creationist will agree with me because they are intelligent enough to recognize all you have is the usual evo rhetoric and NO EVIDENCE.
Then you and I are gullible, because God is something that cannot be seen. It is hypocritical to allege evolutionists are gullible for believing something they can't see while not offering eye-popping proof that God CAN be seen.
And by the way, chickens can't produce dinos because they are descendants from dinos.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
