09 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseTheir God is the Father and my God is the Son. There is really only one
"To THEIR god"? Their god is different from YOUR god? Sounds like you feel superior in your religious delusions to their religious delusions.
God but in three persons. The Jews do not recognize the Son as God.
They only worship the Father as God.
P.S. At present all authority in heaven and earth has been given to the Son.
09 Feb 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot at all. We know it was built by humans. That my friend is a FACT.
Go through what you posted, and check whether any of the words highlighted are referring directly to the theory of evolution. If they are not, then you don't have a case, and are either being dishonest, or were so desperate to prove evolution wrong, you didn't realise your error.
Consider this analogy:
It is a known fact that humans built the pyramids. ...[text shortened]... at they were primarily tombs for Pharaohs.
Do you now dispute that humans built the pyramids?
09 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75if you were interested in truth, you wouldn't have made the scarecrow argument in your OP. you cannot dismiss the vast body of evidence for evolution and declare the whole thing false by focusing on only a small portion of available evidence... well you can, but nobody is going to take you seriously except your fellows who adhere to the same pride of ignorance.
No pride here just interested in truth.
09 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritThat goes for you guys too. We see what you call vast body of evidence as
if you were interested in truth, you wouldn't have made the scarecrow argument in your OP. you cannot dismiss the vast body of evidence for evolution and declare the whole thing false by focusing on only a small portion of available evidence... well you can, but nobody is going to take you seriously except your fellows who adhere to the same pride of ignorance.
either misrepresentations or poor interpretation of the evidence. We have
a truth meter to measure what is really fact and what is fiction. Evolution
falls on the fiction side. 😏
09 Feb 12
Originally posted by RJHindsFor a proven cheat and liar you sure do make a lot of accusations about other people's probity.
In books is the only place you will find evolution, for it does not happen
in real life. (idiot smug face deleted)
P.S. So who is the real liar? I think more fingers point to Proper Knob.
09 Feb 12
Honestly, how blinkered do you have to be to prefer to believe in a god who has deliberately created evidence to fool humanity should they engage in scientific enquiry rather than simply accept the data recovered on face value?
How crazy is it to take a bunch of stories from one single pre-scientific culture and hold that as more likely truth than the entire fruits of scientific endeavour of humankind over the last two centuries?
Why do you even think you can find god in scripture? You baffle me. I work with children and mental people who behave more rationally.
09 Feb 12
Originally posted by avalanchethecatThe truth is that the data is not accepted on face value, because the
Honestly, how blinkered do you have to be to prefer to believe in a god who has deliberately created evidence to fool humanity should they engage in scientific enquiry rather than simply accept the data recovered on face value?
How crazy is it to take a bunch of stories from one single pre-scientific culture and hold that as more likely truth than ...[text shortened]... in scripture? You baffle me. I work with children and mental people who behave more rationally.
evolutionists manipulate and interprete it to agree with their world
view and when they are challenged they resort to calling those that
challenge them religionists so that their views do not count as science.
Very hypocritical I would say. No evidence has been deliberately
created by God to fool man. Man is fooling himself with his unbelief.
09 Feb 12
Originally posted by RJHindsYou're an idiot Hinds. You and Dasa blather on with these ridiculous assertions about 'evolutionists' 'manipulating' the data and it's bollocks, pal, just pure bollocks. If this evidence were able to be manipulated in the manner you suggest a million scientists would immediately publish papers crying foul and make their name over it. It hasn't happened, because they're all doing their best to critically analyse whatever data is produced while everyone else in their field is just waiting for them to put so much as a word out of place so they can jump on their error and aggrandise themselves. If you spent half as much effort in just reading reputable science rather than wallowing in those moronic creationist websites you're so fond of you'd know all this yourself and you wouldn't keep making such a colossal dickhead of yourself. No offence intended.
The truth is that the data is not accepted on face value, because the
evolutionists manipulate and interprete it to agree with their world
view and when they are challenged they resort to calling those that
challenge them religionists so that their views do not count as science.
Very hypocritical I would say. No evidence has been deliberately
created by God to fool man. Man is fooling himself with his unbelief.
09 Feb 12
Originally posted by RJHindsHow do you know all this when you have read zero books on the subject?
That goes for you guys too. We see what you call vast body of evidence as
either misrepresentations or poor interpretation of the evidence. We have
a truth meter to measure what is really fact and what is fiction. Evolution
falls on the fiction side. 😏
09 Feb 12
Just watched a new show by NatGeo on "The 2 million year old boy".
Before they get to this new discover that happened a few years ago of this new missing link which looks like a monkey to me, one should watch this and really listen to these experts on evolution explain how few and how weak the existing evidence is that connects us to our so called primate ancestors. In fact this coffee table size area that would hold the amount of so called evidence that Robbie mentioned is really down to a shoe box size. This is directly said by the father of the boy that found this so called missing link.
So from these experts confessing this, it is amazing how so many evolutionist can say this is a FACT. What a joke.....
I would suggest that all should watch this, and I'm curious for the responces from the evolutionist here and how they will now try and discredit what was said by these experts.
09 Feb 12
Originally posted by galveston75You see, the mistake you're making there is that you are talking from a position of ignorance. There is not a great deal of agreement regarding the precise details of our evolution, but there are a hell of a lot more human ancestor fossils than would fit on a coffee table. Here's a site showing some of the more significant finds.
Just watched a new show by NatGeo on "The 2 million year old boy".
Before they get to this new discover that happened a few years ago of this new missing link which looks like a monkey to me, one should watch this and really listen to these experts on evolution explain how few and how weak the existing evidence is that connects us to our so called pri ...[text shortened]... the evolutionist here and how they will now try and discredit what was said by these experts.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
Note that these are mainly skulls and skull fragments. There are boxes and boxes of other fossils, long bones, ribs, vertebrae etc. which are less significant because they are less suitable for precise species identification.
10 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatGood contradiction of these other experts. Just what I expected form such a non ignorant expert person as yourself.
You see, the mistake you're making there is that you are talking from a position of ignorance. There is not a great deal of agreement regarding the precise details of our evolution, but there are a hell of a lot more human ancestor fossils than would fit on a coffee table. Here's a site showing some of the more significant finds.
http://www.talkor ...[text shortened]... which are less significant because they are less suitable for precise species identification.
I think it's hilarious how you guys answer when the facts are truly shown to you and how ignorant we are for showing it to you. How dare us!!!!! Lol
10 Feb 12
Originally posted by RJHindsthis coming from someone who believes in a book of myths and folk tales.
That goes for you guys too. We see what you call vast body of evidence as
either misrepresentations or poor interpretation of the evidence. We have
a truth meter to measure what is really fact and what is fiction. Evolution
falls on the fiction side. 😏
10 Feb 12
Originally posted by galveston75what evidence are you showing? do you believe evolution theory is entirely based on some ancient human fossils? did you not understand the concept of breaking a twig off the limb of a tree i mentioned before? it sure seems that way the way you continue using the same fallacy.
Good contradiction of these other experts. Just what I expected form such a non ignorant expert person as yourself.
I think it's hilarious how you guys answer when the facts are truly shown to you and how ignorant we are for showing it to you. How dare us!!!!! Lol
