well, there goes the ENTIRE FOSSIL RECORD. if my argument isn't relevant to evolution, then neither is the fossil record, which is one of the key topics of my debate.OdgenTugbyGlub said:This is all well and good, but it doesnt relate to evolution. I suggest you at least get a rudimentary understanding of the mechanisms of evolution before you try and spout this bull again.
then quit debating against other creationist Christians. because a nation cannot be a nation if it is divided against itself.steen said:\Really? But I am already a Christian. I am not a lying, creationist Christian, but perhaps that is what bothers you?
\well, there goes the ENTIRE FOSSIL RECORD. if my argument isn't relevant to evolution, then neither is the fossil record, which is one of the key topics of my debate.
dthmstr254 said:then quit debating against other creationist Christians. because a nation cannot be a nation if it is divided against itself.
Irrelevant, as cars are not subject to biological evolution.dthmstr254 said:unless you are talking about the creation theory, you have no point, and there is still SCIENTIFIC evidence of that.
Tom Berra: responsible for adding meat to the modern teleological argument by comparing the fossil record to a line of corvettes.Steen said:And never mind how much you claim this, you are still lying.
And evolution doesn't claim that either."if you compare a 54 corvette to a 55 corvette, and a 55 to a 56 and so on, you can see the ability for small change to result in large change after a while." the problem here is the question: "what caused the change?" the answer to the corvette is the team of engineers. so saying that these two are comparable would be like looking at a street and saying that once, millions of years ago, it was a golf cart path. simply stupid.
Why? because you say so? If there is evidence of change over time, then certainly that speaks against a design.so the supposed homologies in the fossil record is more evidence for ID than for evolution.
And the new species we have actually witnessed being formed in front of our eyes, they are from mixing parts up right now? How do you explain ring-species per your claim?it just shows that God could have used similar parts to build a whol lot of animals.
Yes.when you get down to it, my computer is made from the same stuff as yours: nuts, bolts, screws, wires, plastic glass, etc. but I guarantee that you probably have a better one than I do. so is that evidence that all these parts just came together through completely natural forces???
SIGH! The fossil record is from biological organisms, your car example is not. So no, the Fossil Record stays; your demagogery isn't evidence of anything.dthmstr254 said:well, there goes the ENTIRE FOSSIL RECORD. if my argument isn't relevant to evolution, then neither is the fossil record, which is one of the key topics of my debate.
Rather, YOU should stop lying. Because lying Christians ARE divided against God. Stop your lies, stop your pathetic quest for EVIDENCE of God, evidencing your weak faith that can't accept God per faith alone. Stop breaking God's commandments in your weakness for a tangible God.dthmstr254 said:then quit debating against other creationist Christians. because a nation cannot be a nation if it is divided against itself.
Rather, he wants licence to lie, wants other Christians to =say that it is OK to bear fal;se witness when done in the belief that it is for Jesus. LYING FOR JESUS, that is what these fake, weak Christians are doing. Their faith is so weak that they need evidence for their god. They are like the Israelites in the desert, building a Golden Calf because their mind can't hold a God they can't tuch.tecoyah said:Interesting....I was unaware our nation was a theocracy.
steen said:Rest assured that Christianity is nothing like the lies these types spew. I, on behalf of Christianity, reject these liars.
let's see:steen said:Rather, YOU should stop lying. Because lying Christians ARE divided against God. Stop your lies, stop your pathetic quest for EVIDENCE of God, evidencing your weak faith that can't accept God per faith alone. Stop breaking God's commandments in your weakness for a tangible God.
Did I mention STOP LYING IN GOD'S NAME?
Creationists are the False Preachers that Jesus warned us against. They are the pharisees who are selfrighteously claiming the goal justifies the means, never mind how much the means directly violate God's word.
You guys should be ashamed of yourself; but you are probably to much holier-than-thou narcissists to see the harm you do to God per your political agenda. NOTHING has turned people away from God like the lies you and your ilk are spewing. STOP LYING!
well, protect the theory of evolution with it. and I mean you better include the Cambrian Explosion. for a picture of what it really is here is a timespan: 100 to 200 years, and in that timespan we see the emergence of several thousand different species out of nothing but things similar to your jelly-fish, an example of a fossil from that era would be the archaeopteryx, which was a flightless bird, not a step in the reptile/bird evolution line. let us just say, this scraps your fossil record because you cannot find the many thousands of missing links that we have to fill. but it isn't like you evolutionists will ever believe that matters, I bet that I will get a like answer to this post as I did to my last post: "it doesn't matter"steen said:SIGH! The fossil record is from biological organisms, your car example is not. So no, the Fossil Record stays; your demagogery isn't evidence of anything.
But for ome odd reeason you seem to cowardly avoiding the evidence of species having been formed under our direct observation, without any fossil record involved. Why do you keep running away from that?
dthmstr254 said:I am tired of hearing that I am out to prove God's existence. that is IMPOSSIBLE! you cannot PROVE God, but you CAN give EVIDENCE for God and AGAINST evolution.
dthmstr254 said:well, protect the theory of evolution with it. and I mean you better include the Cambrian Explosion. for a picture of what it really is here is a timespan: 100 to 200 years, and in that timespan we see the emergence of several thousand different species out of nothing but things similar to your jelly-fish, an example of a fossil from that era would be the archaeopteryx, which was a flightless bird, not a step in the reptile/bird evolution line. let us just say, this scraps your fossil record because you cannot find the many thousands of missing links that we have to fill. but it isn't like you evolutionists will ever believe that matters, I bet that I will get a like answer to this post as I did to my last post: "it doesn't matter"
secondly, your argument of recent evolution includes only modern examples of it that only support MICRO-evolution. where are the examples of MACRO-evolution?
dthmstr254 said:well, protect the theory of evolution with it. and I mean you better include the Cambrian Explosion. for a picture of what it really is here is a timespan: 100 to 200 years, and in that timespan we see the emergence of several thousand different species out of nothing but things similar to your jelly-fish, an example of a fossil from that era would be the archaeopteryx, which was a flightless bird, not a step in the reptile/bird evolution line. let us just say, this scraps your fossil record because you cannot find the many thousands of missing links that we have to fill. but it isn't like you evolutionists will ever believe that matters, I bet that I will get a like answer to this post as I did to my last post: "it doesn't matter"
secondly, your argument of recent evolution includes only modern examples of it that only support MICRO-evolution. where are the examples of MACRO-evolution?
The Cambrian Explosion is the compound term used to describe the vast number of new phyla that appear in the fossil record for the first time around 540 million years ago. Species from 70 or so different phyla show up suddenly within a time period of about 5 million years (and some Chinese scientists even believe that time period is more like 2-3 million years (Chinese National Geography 467 Sept 1999)). Before the Cambrian Explosion the fossil record shows that life on Earth was fairly static. Only a very small number of Pre-Cambrian life forms (Ediacaran fauna), blue green algae, and single celled animals show up at all in the fossil record from about 3.5 billion years ago to about 600 million years ago.
tecoyah said:You do of course realize....you will burn in the depths of someones hell for posting that.....heh
What is that?dthmstr254 said:let's see:
1.) you must be an emissary from the Jesus Seminar,
And so? Oh,l I get it, all other translations are lies, right?because you are NOT reading the KJV.
Never heard of it. Is that in the KJV? Any other misrepresentations and lies you want to spew about me? Just because I am disgusted with your perversion of God's message to us, turning it into hatemongering and disbelief in Faith, it must be ME that are wrong? How nutty of you.I bet you believe in the Gospel of Thomas,
And what the ##%#$@%#$#$ does that have to do with anything? Do you frequently go off on such rambling, irrelevant tangents?which is a very unchristian and unbiblical book which states that only men can go to heaven, and I quote: "if any woman is to make herself like a man, then will she enter the gates of heaven." what does this mean? should a woman undergo a sex change operation???
Ah, so now you are also outright lying about JESUS. You are just getting worse and worse.2.) false preachers: the false preachers in James was a prophecy that actually foretold the invention of evolution.
There were NO Christians back when Jesus stated this. You are again spewing stupid lies. You are, in fact, showing an astonishing ignorance of the bible itself, and about Jesus. SO it is not only Science you are ignorant about. You are making ignorant rantings about EVERYTHING.back when this prophecy was written, there was nothing except CREATIONIST CHRISTIANS!!!
I think that somebody like you who lie all the time will make up anything that props up your weak faith sufficiently that you can function from day to day without being paralized by fear of not being saved. Your weak faith demand that you yourself must save yourself instead of leaving that in God's hands and God's grace.you really think that a creationist Christian would say that he was wrong???
As in that this is a parable from God to the beduin tribal society for which this was written? Sure, go ahead.and I quote "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." since you want to claim that you are a Christian, I will argue with you from a purely theological standpoint.
False. Your absolutist claim is a lie. I have read Genesis, and I still sday creationists are flat-out lying. The creationist lies about science have been documented so many times that the talk.origin website has generated a specific library of the most common repeat-offending lies that creationists spew. For them to be able to do so, creationists must be spewing predictable lies in a regular fashion, which indeed they do. As I said, you guys are bearing false witness.3.) lies: actually, if you want to say someone is lying about creation, you must have never read Genesis.
When you spew lies about the science, as I have shown you to do, then that is a problem with you lying, not with the Bible. Please cease your incessant misrepresentations.or John 1, or any of the rest of the Bible as a matter of fact. you must have a real big problem with Jesus if you want to say that we are lying.
Ah, but I am a Christian and not an atheist, so if I did that, I would be lying as much as you do.hows about you quit calling yourself a Christian and put on your real title: atheist.
Huh?dthmstr254 said:well, protect the theory of evolution with it.
What a load of nonsense. The "Cambrian Explosion" occurs over t ime-span of 5-10 MILLION years. Any other lie you would like to spew? Oh, wait, maybe you aren't lying? Maybe you truly are that misinformed and ignorant of what you are talking about?and I mean you better include the Cambrian Explosion. for a picture of what it really is here is a timespan: 100 to 200 years, and in that timespan we see the emergence of several thousand different species out of nothing but things similar to your jelly-fish,
Ah, another creationist "because I say so" postulation. But per your previous history of incessant lies, you will have to document this. What is the foundation for your absolutist and false claim about archaeopteryx? Please assure me that you didn't just mindlessly copy this off some creationist lie-site, but that you actually have a glimmer of understanding of what you are talking about?an example of a fossil from that era would be the archaeopteryx, which was a flightless bird, not a step in the reptile/bird evolution line.
Huh? SO because we don't have every one fossil link imaginable, none of the links we have are valid? Yeah, once again the stark dishonest of the misrepresentations that creationists spew is made clear by you.let us just say, this scraps your fossil record because you cannot find the many thousands of missing links that we have to fill.
Nope. It merely mean that paleontologists have much more fun in the field before everything has been found. But it certainly doesn't mean that what is found somehow is invalid as you so dishonestly suggests.but it isn't like you evolutionists will ever believe that matters, I bet that I will get a like answer to this post as I did to my last post: "it doesn't matter"
Well, if "macro-Evolution" is the formation of new species, then yes it does involve that.secondly, your argument of recent evolution includes only modern examples of it that only support MICRO-evolution. where are the examples of MACRO-evolution?
if you read the previous posts, I recanted that part. however, compared to the rates that evolution was moving at before, you would have to have changed several constants before that was possible.steen said:Huh?
What a load of nonsense. The "Cambrian Explosion" occurs over t ime-span of 5-10 MILLION years. Any other lie you would like to spew? Oh, wait, maybe you aren't lying? Maybe you truly are that misinformed and ignorant of what you are talking about?
But let me help you. The resource library of creationist lies I mentioned above, here are a few of their lies and scientific responses regarding the "Cambrian Explosion":
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html
Ah, another creationist "because I say so" postulation. But per your previous history of incessant lies, you will have to document this. What is the foundation for your absolutist and false claim about archaeopteryx? Please assure me that you didn't just mindlessly copy this off some creationist lie-site, but that you actually have a glimmer of understanding of what you are talking about?
Huh? SO because we don't have every one fossil link imaginable, none of the links we have are valid? Yeah, once again the stark dishonest of the misrepresentations that creationists spew is made clear by you.
MACRO EVOLUTION IS ANY EVOLUTION OF AN ANIMAL ABOVE THE SPECIES LEVEL (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/paleonet/paleo21/mevolution.html)Well, if "macro-Evolution" is the formation of new species, then yes it does involve that.
But despite many requests you have still failed to define what these two terms are, and what it i9s that prevents one from becoming the other.
Suffice to say that you either are lying, are a coward, or both.
maybe you should learn what true Christianity is. last I checked, Jesus asked us to "love our neighbors" and treat eachother with love. you are definitely not acting Christ-like (the definition of Christian when it was first created). maybe you should reread the Bible, and not the NWT, which screws up its own translations to mean something else. John 1:1-5 in the NWT:steen said:a whole lot of bashing crap that called me a lying, thieving, non-Christian imbosil who doesn't know Jesus for who He truly is.
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:I would rather make the most of the here and now than waste my life waiting for something that most likely doesn't exist. I don't buy into the whole "savior" nonsense. I don't want your saving. I would rather go to hell if it existed, since at least the people there are free thinkers and not mindless Godsheep.
DonRicardo said:Fist, I'd like to ask you how a toddler can be responsible.
The definition of responsibility:
1 a : liable to be called on to answer b (1) : liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent <a committee responsible for the job> (2) : being the cause or explanation <mechanical defects were responsible for the accident> c : liable to legal review or in case of fault to penalties
2 a : able to answer for one's conduct and obligations : TRUSTWORTHY b : able to choose for oneself between right and wrong
3 : marked by or involving responsibility or accountability <responsible financial policies> <a responsible job>
4 : politically answerable; especially : required to submit to the electorate if defeated by the legislature -- used especially of the British cabinet
- re·spon·si·ble·ness noun
- re·spon·si·bly /-blE/ adverb
synonyms RESPONSIBLE, ANSWERABLE, ACCOUNTABLE, AMENABLE, LIABLE mean subject to being held to account. RESPONSIBLE implies holding a specific office, duty, or trust <the bureau responsible for revenue collection>. ANSWERABLE suggests a relation between one having a moral or legal obligation and a court or other authority charged with oversight of its observance <an intelligence agency answerable to Congress>. ACCOUNTABLE suggests imminence of retribution for unfulfilled trust or violated obligation <elected officials are accountable to the voters>. AMENABLE and LIABLE stress the fact of subjection to review, censure, or control by a designated authority under certain conditions <laws are amenable to judicial review> <not liable for the debts of the former spouse>.
In short, we can coclude, responsibility encompasses the fact of knowing the difference between right and wrong - in this example at least. Well, explain, how can a very young child know the difference between right and wrong? Why is there any education required?
You were wrong to say that the toddler is still responsible, although he did not know what he was doing. The definition says that one who knows what he's doing is responsible, otherwise not.
Also, what about the baby who was smacked at the floor. Did he have a free will or was he able to make a decision to prevent it? Did he make any sin? Please, explain.
...
Well, what do we have here?
If your "God" knows every possible outcome, then he must be responsible for each action that occurs - and not remotely, but completely. Assuming this, "God" knows what will happen in advance, if he sets a trigger or defines an action that will cause reactions - the outcome.
This is a contradiction you have made. Which one is true now, according to you?
A) God is all knowing and powerfull (evil)
B) God is not all knowing and not all powerfull (not completely responsible)
steen said:And they found the guy who forged it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?