Science against evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-01-2013, 03:57 PM
RE: Science against evolution
(18-01-2013 03:47 PM)Vera Wrote:  
(18-01-2013 03:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  While sad, that is at least comprehensible ignorance, remedied with one fact unknown to the poster. Sad
And you call yourself terse and deadly, Chas? No way is this comprehensible ignorance. Even if you're ten. Not in a time where we have google and wikipedia. Like someone I knew once said, nowadays there is no excuse for ignorance Yes


There are people who don't comprehend searching for information on teh interwebz. Really.
These are otherwise apparently normal people who lack the skills and/or education.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
18-01-2013, 04:02 PM
RE: Science against evolution
(18-01-2013 03:40 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  I think it it is unwise to assume that.

One must never underestimate ones opponents, Chas.


I would never consider someone that ignorant as an opponent. A patient, maybe.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
18-01-2013, 04:12 PM
RE: Science against evolution
Touché.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2013, 04:12 AM
RE: Science against evolution
(16-01-2013 01:35 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(16-01-2013 01:09 PM)AtheismExposed Wrote:  Simply put, because it runs contrary to what the Bible has to say about our origins. If we are merely an animal species like any other that leaves no room for God
Okay, few questions if you don't mind:

1) If you're interpreting Genesis literally, how do you reconcile the inconsistencies in the creation story from Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? Likewise, how do you reconcile the scientifically false assertions.

2) If you're interpreting Genesis literally, how do you explain traveling starlight?

3) If you're interpreting Genesis literally, how do you explain the accuracy radiometric dating?

4) If you're interpreting Genesis literally, how do you explain carnivores or any other animal/bacteria/virus that relies on death for sustenance?

Next set:

1) How much of your studies have you dedicated to Ancient Near East history, writings, and mythologies?

2) If you have studied this, how do you explain the Akkadian's story of Gilgamesh and Adapa?

3) How do you explain the commonalities shown in all ANE mythologies that pre-date Hebrew culture?
1) Genesis 2 is NOT inconsistent with Genesis 1, it merely adds some extra detail to the story. In Genesis 1 says that God made man and woman in his own image then in Genesis 2 it explains HOW God did this.

2) Starlight is more of a problem for Atheists, I don't believe the idea that stars are anywhere near as far away as scientists claim. The bible says they were set in the firmament as lights, and there you are...on a clear night you can see them, little points of light set into the sky.

3) Radiometric dating is based on the assumption that decay rates of radioisotopes have remained exactly the same for millions of years. I would distrust that level of uniformity as a base assertion.

4) The need to feast on dead flesh is an aftereffect of the Fall of Man. Before Eve's sin there was no death. Likewise bacteria and disease.

-

1) Aside from the Bible, comparatively little Smile
2) I am aware of the epic of Gilgamesh but unsure how you are trying to relate it to the Bible. Enlighten me
3)A common thread among a lot of ancient cultures is a story of a global flood, if anything this is more support for the Bible's story of creation rather than antagonism to it. Other cultures who flourished after the flood would have indeed carried with them a memory of the event, which is probably why it's still remembered and spoken of today.

Check out my YouTube channel for more videos and information Smile

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ5PX9Y...1uwXxWwQ6w
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2013, 04:14 AM
RE: Science against evolution
(19-01-2013 04:12 AM)AtheismExposed Wrote:  1) Aside from the Bible, comparatively little Smile
I rest my case. Drinking Beverage

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vosur's post
19-01-2013, 04:44 AM
RE: Science against evolution
(19-01-2013 04:12 AM)AtheismExposed Wrote:  
(16-01-2013 01:35 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Okay, few questions if you don't mind:

1) If you're interpreting Genesis literally, how do you reconcile the inconsistencies in the creation story from Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? Likewise, how do you reconcile the scientifically false assertions.

2) If you're interpreting Genesis literally, how do you explain traveling starlight?

3) If you're interpreting Genesis literally, how do you explain the accuracy radiometric dating?

4) If you're interpreting Genesis literally, how do you explain carnivores or any other animal/bacteria/virus that relies on death for sustenance?

Next set:

1) How much of your studies have you dedicated to Ancient Near East history, writings, and mythologies?

2) If you have studied this, how do you explain the Akkadian's story of Gilgamesh and Adapa?

3) How do you explain the commonalities shown in all ANE mythologies that pre-date Hebrew culture?
1) Genesis 2 is NOT inconsistent with Genesis 1, it merely adds some extra detail to the story. In Genesis 1 says that God made man and woman in his own image then in Genesis 2 it explains HOW God did this.

2) Starlight is more of a problem for Atheists, I don't believe the idea that stars are anywhere near as far away as scientists claim. The bible says they were set in the firmament as lights, and there you are...on a clear night you can see them, little points of light set into the sky.

3) Radiometric dating is based on the assumption that decay rates of radioisotopes have remained exactly the same for millions of years. I would distrust that level of uniformity as a base assertion.

4) The need to feast on dead flesh is an aftereffect of the Fall of Man. Before Eve's sin there was no death. Likewise bacteria and disease.

-

1) Aside from the Bible, comparatively little Smile
2) I am aware of the epic of Gilgamesh but unsure how you are trying to relate it to the Bible. Enlighten me
3)A common thread among a lot of ancient cultures is a story of a global flood, if anything this is more support for the Bible's story of creation rather than antagonism to it. Other cultures who flourished after the flood would have indeed carried with them a memory of the event, which is probably why it's still remembered and spoken of today.


Hey, I love this guy, this is my new best friend. I simply love when people want to be all super smart, know everything, yet there is only one book book they ever read in their life.

Yeah, boy, this was a good joke, can you please go on and tell us more about how you do not believe scientists and their stupid star distance, but you believe that there are some lights in the sky? Please continue, this all makes me feel fuzzy.

Hahahahahahahaha...

Big Grin

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Filox's post
20-01-2013, 01:22 AM
RE: Science against evolution
(19-01-2013 04:12 AM)AtheismExposed Wrote:  
(16-01-2013 01:35 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Okay, few questions if you don't mind:

1) If you're interpreting Genesis literally, how do you reconcile the inconsistencies in the creation story from Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? Likewise, how do you reconcile the scientifically false assertions.

2) If you're interpreting Genesis literally, how do you explain traveling starlight?

3) If you're interpreting Genesis literally, how do you explain the accuracy radiometric dating?

4) If you're interpreting Genesis literally, how do you explain carnivores or any other animal/bacteria/virus that relies on death for sustenance?

Next set:

1) How much of your studies have you dedicated to Ancient Near East history, writings, and mythologies?

2) If you have studied this, how do you explain the Akkadian's story of Gilgamesh and Adapa?

3) How do you explain the commonalities shown in all ANE mythologies that pre-date Hebrew culture?
1) Genesis 2 is NOT inconsistent with Genesis 1, it merely adds some extra detail to the story. In Genesis 1 says that God made man and woman in his own image then in Genesis 2 it explains HOW God did this.

2) Starlight is more of a problem for Atheists, I don't believe the idea that stars are anywhere near as far away as scientists claim. The bible says they were set in the firmament as lights, and there you are...on a clear night you can see them, little points of light set into the sky.

3) Radiometric dating is based on the assumption that decay rates of radioisotopes have remained exactly the same for millions of years. I would distrust that level of uniformity as a base assertion.

4) The need to feast on dead flesh is an aftereffect of the Fall of Man. Before Eve's sin there was no death. Likewise bacteria and disease.

-

1) Aside from the Bible, comparatively little Smile
2) I am aware of the epic of Gilgamesh but unsure how you are trying to relate it to the Bible. Enlighten me
3)A common thread among a lot of ancient cultures is a story of a global flood, if anything this is more support for the Bible's story of creation rather than antagonism to it. Other cultures who flourished after the flood would have indeed carried with them a memory of the event, which is probably why it's still remembered and spoken of today.
For number 2, have you ever looked at pictures of the Sun, our nearest star? Here's a picture.
[Image: xraysun.gif]
It's less "points" of light, more of giant burning nuclear fusion reactors. But just curious, how far do you think the stars are away from Earth?

Regarding point 3, you need to explain further. Show that radioactive decay can actually be changed by environmental influence. Explain why various radiometric dating procedures can yield the same result.

And point 4, I'll have you know that bacteria plays a huge role in the origin of the vast amount of biodiversity we have today. Also, you seem to perceive that all bacteria are bad, which is NOT the case. Heck, various species of bacteria serve as our defenses against other bacteria. Even so, feeding on plants can be considered as "feeding on dead flesh", because plants are living things as well. So, how does anything survive for that matter?

Side point: Are you able to reconcile the theory of evolution and Genesis? Show us how.

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2013, 04:17 AM
RE: Science against evolution
That picture was so hot it melted through my avatar.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Buddy Christ's post
20-01-2013, 04:53 AM
RE: Science against evolution
(20-01-2013 01:22 AM)robotworld Wrote:  
(19-01-2013 04:12 AM)AtheismExposed Wrote:  1) Genesis 2 is NOT inconsistent with Genesis 1, it merely adds some extra detail to the story. In Genesis 1 says that God made man and woman in his own image then in Genesis 2 it explains HOW God did this.

2) Starlight is more of a problem for Atheists, I don't believe the idea that stars are anywhere near as far away as scientists claim. The bible says they were set in the firmament as lights, and there you are...on a clear night you can see them, little points of light set into the sky.

3) Radiometric dating is based on the assumption that decay rates of radioisotopes have remained exactly the same for millions of years. I would distrust that level of uniformity as a base assertion.

4) The need to feast on dead flesh is an aftereffect of the Fall of Man. Before Eve's sin there was no death. Likewise bacteria and disease.

-

1) Aside from the Bible, comparatively little Smile
2) I am aware of the epic of Gilgamesh but unsure how you are trying to relate it to the Bible. Enlighten me
3)A common thread among a lot of ancient cultures is a story of a global flood, if anything this is more support for the Bible's story of creation rather than antagonism to it. Other cultures who flourished after the flood would have indeed carried with them a memory of the event, which is probably why it's still remembered and spoken of today.
For number 2, have you ever looked at pictures of the Sun, our nearest star? Here's a picture.
[Image: xraysun.gif]
It's less "points" of light, more of giant burning nuclear fusion reactors. But just curious, how far do you think the stars are away from Earth?

Regarding point 3, you need to explain further. Show that radioactive decay can actually be changed by environmental influence. Explain why various radiometric dating procedures can yield the same result.

And point 4, I'll have you know that bacteria plays a huge role in the origin of the vast amount of biodiversity we have today. Also, you seem to perceive that all bacteria are bad, which is NOT the case. Heck, various species of bacteria serve as our defenses against other bacteria. Even so, feeding on plants can be considered as "feeding on dead flesh", because plants are living things as well. So, how does anything survive for that matter?

Side point: Are you able to reconcile the theory of evolution and Genesis? Show us how.
No one is 100% sure but going from Scripture I would estimate that there are several spherical structures into which they are set, with the outermost one being opaque and impenetrable. This last would have a radius of around 4.5 billion miles.

On 3, some modern research is concluding that the rates of radioactive decay is changing over time but they HAVE NO IDEA WHY (LINK)

How do I reconcile evolution with genesis? That's simple, I don't believe evolution is real.

Check out my YouTube channel for more videos and information Smile

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ5PX9Y...1uwXxWwQ6w
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2013, 05:54 AM
Science against evolution
(20-01-2013 04:53 AM)AtheismExposed Wrote:  
(20-01-2013 01:22 AM)robotworld Wrote:  For number 2, have you ever looked at pictures of the Sun, our nearest star? Here's a picture.
[Image: xraysun.gif]
It's less "points" of light, more of giant burning nuclear fusion reactors. But just curious, how far do you think the stars are away from Earth?

Regarding point 3, you need to explain further. Show that radioactive decay can actually be changed by environmental influence. Explain why various radiometric dating procedures can yield the same result.

And point 4, I'll have you know that bacteria plays a huge role in the origin of the vast amount of biodiversity we have today. Also, you seem to perceive that all bacteria are bad, which is NOT the case. Heck, various species of bacteria serve as our defenses against other bacteria. Even so, feeding on plants can be considered as "feeding on dead flesh", because plants are living things as well. So, how does anything survive for that matter?

Side point: Are you able to reconcile the theory of evolution and Genesis? Show us how.
No one is 100% sure but going from Scripture I would estimate that there are several spherical structures into which they are set, with the outermost one being opaque and impenetrable. This last would have a radius of around 4.5 billion miles.

On 3, some modern research is concluding that the rates of radioactive decay is changing over time but they HAVE NO IDEA WHY (LINK)

How do I reconcile evolution with genesis? That's simple, I don't believe evolution is real.

My brain hurts from the utter stupidity of AE's response. I'm off to bed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: