Theist logic

Originally posted by Omnislash
I thought my computer evolved from an Atari which randomly manifested itself over a vast spance of time, from the building blocks of the primordial pool of Radio Shack parts.

No, its too "irreducibly complex" for that.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, its too "irreducibly complex" for that.

Nah, who would belive something like that? 😀

Originally posted by no1marauder
A) Goddunnit.

B) Read what I wrote or have someone brighter than you explain it to you. Birds either evolved from A) Reptiles or B) Some other type of land animal. In either case, land animals existed prior to birds in the fossil record. This is contrary to a literal reading of Genesis.

You're an authority on nothing. Try reading the links that I provided. Better yet, don't respond to my posts.

Originally posted by Nemesio
A theory of the genesis of the world should be internally consistent. To compare
Evolution with Creation is silly, because each claims that the other is wrong. The
issue is: Is Evolution internally consistent within itself? Thus far, to my knowledge,
there have been no ratified internal contradictions.

Scott looked at 'page 1,' but he didn't go far r after vegetation and animal life. It can't be both, unless
you're insane.

Nemesio

Yes, I think we all know by now that there are apparent contradictions in the scripture, but there are also apparent contradictions in the fossil record. Take a look at the links I cited.

Originally posted by no1marauder
B) Read what I wrote or have someone brighter than you explain it to you. Birds either evolved from A) Reptiles or B) Some other type of land animal. In either case, land animals existed prior to birds in the fossil record. This is contrary to a literal reading of Genesis.

It's worse than this, #1. According to Genesis, man was created both before
(Genesis 2) and after (Genesis 1) animals.

Howdayalikethat?

Nemesio

Originally posted by The Chess Express
Yes, I think we all know by now that there are apparent contradictions in the scripture, but there are also apparent contradictions in the fossil record. Take a look at the links I cited.

Apparent?

I think you mean 'patent.'

Nemesio

Originally posted by The Chess Express
You're an authority on nothing. Try reading the links that I provided. Better yet, don't respond to my posts.

I like the second one with the big, pretty pictures; did you color them yourself? Unfortunately, it was the same old rubbish about "missing links" which for some bizarre reason creationists keep "thinking" has to be a bird with half a tail and half feathers. The idiocy involved in these types of deliberate or just plain stupid misconceptions have been explained here soooooooooooooooooo many times I can't count. If you want to check for them, search for any threads started by a cut and paste from dj2becker over the last year.

Originally posted by Nemesio
A theory of the genesis of the world should be internally consistent. To compare
Evolution with Creation is silly, because each claims that the other is wrong. The
issue is: Is Evolution internally consistent within itself? Thus far, to my knowledge,
there have been no ratified internal contradictions.

Scott looked at 'page 1,' but he didn't go far ...[text shortened]... r after vegetation and animal life. It can't be both, unless
you're insane.

Nemesio

It’s also a matter of interpretation. Genesis 2 doesn’t specify any order, it just says what God did. Genesis 1 specifies the order of events by numbering the days of creation. One can also look at Genesis 2 as being a quick recap of Genesis 1, but also to include Adam & Eve.

Like I said, the scripture is open to interpretation. 😉

Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]Well, here's the first one. You should be able to find it - it's on the first page of the bible. That pesky little bit about land plants being created before the sun. Oh and birds being created before land animals. Both easily scientifically refuted.

While I’m inclined to believe that there needed to be light before there were plants, ...[text shortened]... ngenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter4.asp

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/dinobird.html[/b]

The angelfire site loses any vague sort of credibilty it might have had by telling me that fossils are 14C dated! What a load of crap! Called in the trade, as an outright lie.

I can't be bothered going into the rest of your ludicrious assertions, Nem and No1 have done that for me.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I like the second one with the big, pretty pictures; did you color them yourself? Unfortunately, it was the same old rubbish about "missing links" which for some bizarre reason creationists keep "thinking" has to be a bird with half a tail and half feathers. The idiocy involved in these types of deliberate or just plain stupid misconceptions have been ex ...[text shortened]... them, search for any threads started by a cut and paste from dj2becker over the last year.

Yes, even though evolution is nothing without missing links, the validity of the missing links is not important. Like I said you are an authority on nothing.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
It’s also a matter of interpretation. Genesis 2 doesn’t specify any order, it just says what God did. Genesis 1 specifies the order of events by numbering the days of creation. One can also look at Genesis 2 as being a quick recap of Genesis 1, but also to include Adam & Eve.

Like I said, the scripture is open to interpretation. 😉

The best interpretation of Genesis is that it's a fairy tale with allegorical elements as well teleological ones. It's not bad as primitive tales of this type go, though I think Pandora's Box is a better one as far as Man's "fall" is concerned.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
Yes, even though evolution is nothing without missing links, the validity of the missing links is not important. Like I said you are an authority on nothing.

Only the ignorant keep talking about "missing links" in the way you lunatics describe, so keep doing so.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
The angelfire site loses any vague sort of credibilty it might have had by telling me that fossils are 14C dated! What a load of crap! Called in the trade, as an outright lie.

I can't be bothered going into the rest of your ludicrious assertions, Nem and No1 have done that for me.

But the pictures are nice so it must be true.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Only the ignorant keep talking about "missing links" in the way you lunatics describe, so keep doing so.

You are a lunatic 😛

Originally posted by scottishinnz
The angelfire site loses any vague sort of credibilty it might have had by telling me that fossils are 14C dated! What a load of crap! Called in the trade, as an outright lie.

I can't be bothered going into the rest of your ludicrious assertions, Nem and No1 have done that for me.

Well, I agree with you that fossils are probably millions of years old, but the site still offers good information. What about the other site? If you rejected science because of one bad claim you couldn’t be a scientist could you?

Anyway, you’re the one who brought the scripture into this, and I have shown how you’re interpretation could be wrong.