| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| lets play " whack a moehle " | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 12 2009, 09:34 PM (1,915 Views) | |
| Deleted User | Apr 22 2009, 06:45 AM Post #81 |
|
Deleted User
|
Because they don't have that faith. Period. My guess is creationists post such stuff to prove to other creationists they are creationists and to piss everyone else off. But there own Bible says God was an evolutionist, at least in the sense of "a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion" (Dictionary.com/Random House), from Genesis 2, the gradual development of woman: 18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. |
|
|
| the breeze | Apr 22 2009, 09:56 PM Post #82 |
the breeze
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
many species do we see appearing? No New Species Paul and Ann Erlich say we have yet to document the appearance of a single animal species in the world of nature, and in the vast majority in the world of species, we cannot even detect any genetic movement. It's a virtual zero. The Bible offers the perfect explanation for this. For six days (periods of time), God created. On the seventh day, he rested. For six days, he replaced the species that were going extinct with more complex and diverse species. For six days, he created through special, miraculous means, the evidence of which we clearly see in the fossil record. But the Bible tells us that when He created Eve, He ceased from his work of creating new species of life. God is at rest. We're now in the seventh day, where God is resting from his work of creating. All we see today is the natural processes. The natural processes tell us that the planet is heading to a culmination in death. When Will God Create Again? Revelation 21 tells us that the very instant that God conquers the problem of evil in man, he will create again. There is an eighth day of creation coming. It's exciting to think about the fact that God may have many weeks of creation planned for the future. We're simply through the first week. Can you imagine what's going to happen in the second, third of fourth week, etc? It would be exciting news if we could be a part of that work with him. Creation vs. Evolution? Whenever I discuss this whole issue of creation evolution, everyone wants to talk about what we know the least about - the origin of man. You know the story. We begin with a primitive bipedal primate species, and wind up with an advanced character. The truth of the matter is that the evidence of the bipedal primates that God created before Adam and Eve fills only one coffin full of bones. We don't have a lot of evidence. It's not like the dinosaurs. In no case are any of those bi-pedaled primate finds more than 30% complete; that's the most complete fossil find that we have. |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Apr 22 2009, 11:21 PM Post #83 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ah breezy... before you can question whether no new species have shown up, it first becomes necessary to define exactly what a specie might be. It is a man-made definition and not something clearly denoted in nature. And, because your author lies, a simple check of Google for "speciation events" shows that many new species have appeared. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Apr 23 2009, 12:54 AM Post #84 |
|
Deleted User
|
Species is a favorite creationist deception. What they mean is Biblical kinds. The different races are considered different kinds, thus a source of justification racism and slavery. My favorit example of new species are ring species, especially Ensatina salamanders of Central Valley in California. The other form of this same deceptive creationist argument is acceptance of micro-evolution but rejection of macro-evolution. For a reference which would keep even a knowledgable person busy for months see 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Beside, evolutionists are replacing the notion species with that of clades. |
|
|
| the breeze | Apr 23 2009, 09:54 PM Post #85 |
the breeze
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
When Will God Create Again? Revelation 21 tells us that the very instant that God conquers the problem of evil in man, he will create again. There is an eighth day of creation coming. It's exciting to think about the fact that God may have many weeks of creation planned for the future. We're simply through the first week. Can you imagine what's going to happen in the second, third of fourth week, etc? It would be exciting news if we could be a part of that work with him. Creation vs. Evolution? Whenever I discuss this whole issue of creation evolution, everyone wants to talk about what we know the least about - the origin of man. You know the story. We begin with a primitive bipedal primate species, and wind up with an advanced character. The truth of the matter is that the evidence of the bipedal primates that God created before Adam and Eve fills only one coffin full of bones. We don't have a lot of evidence. It's not like the dinosaurs. In no case are any of those bi-pedaled primate finds more than 30% complete; that's the most complete fossil find that we have. |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Apr 23 2009, 11:06 PM Post #86 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Another breezy snip that is supposed to prove one thing while actually demonstrating something completely contrary to the argument.
So, the author admits that there is evidence of bipedal primates, but the author just wishes there was more. "We don't have a lot of evidence" while not admitting that there is NO evidence of creation as defined by creation science. At least some of the bipedal fossils are 30% complete. Not the 0% compete data supporting creationism. And what is completely missing from this latest screed is the question of why there are ANY bipedal primate fossils? Creation science says they shouldn't exist, but there they are. How do you explain 'em, breezy? |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Apr 24 2009, 12:57 AM Post #87 |
|
Deleted User
|
Another nail in the lid of the creationist coffin: Prominent Hominid Fossils: "This list includes fossils that are important for either their scientific or historic interest, or because they are often mentioned by creationists. One sometimes reads that all hominid fossils could fit in a coffin, or on a table, or a billiard table. That is a misleading image, as there are now thousands of hominid fossils. They are however mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth. Complete skulls and skeletons are rare." The list is long! breeze, is their any fossil evidence of Adam and Eve? |
|
|
| ngc1514 | Apr 24 2009, 01:38 AM Post #88 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yeah, once the Creationists get hold of something, no matter how it is discredited, they never let go. Doesn't matter if it's true or not, there is no lie too big that the Creationists won't tell in their utter fear of having to admit they MIGHT be wrong. The funniest thing is watching them go through all sorts of contortions to show why the bipedal fossils can't be in the evolutionary pathway towards H. sapiens without understanding that the FACT of the fossils - that they exist when Creationism says they shouldn't - renders all their arguments rolling-on-the-floor ridiculous. Talk about turning a blind eye... |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Apr 24 2009, 02:03 AM Post #89 |
|
Deleted User
|
Fits with blind faith. And that's the whack-a-mole game, you knock down their phoney arguments, argument after argument, only for them to go back and repeat, ad nauseum. That seems to be what they call winning (when they're not whining). |
|
|
| ngc1514 | Apr 24 2009, 07:49 AM Post #90 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Fortunately the arguments are so simplistic and breezy so ignorant of both science AND what he's trying to demonstrate... whacking those moles isn't much of a task. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · RV AND CAMPING DISCUSSION · Next Topic » |







![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)



12:41 AM Jul 14
