Darwin's theory

J C

housetypeb wrote: »

So you turn the other cheek-but still protest? Logic has no meaning to you.

My mouth and my cheek are separate and independent organs!!!:)

Frank Bullitt

J C wrote: »

I have answered all questions posed to me, in so far as time has permitted.
You're the guys who haven't effectivley addressed my posting about the basis for ID ... despite a number of half-starts and failed attempts.

... and ye are the guys now trying to derail the thread by attacking the person of Creationists with unfounded accusations of insanity rather than addressing their ideas.

Ye are the guys with all the invalid arguments ... and now ye have lowered yourselves and your arguments to unfounded name-calling.

And here we have it, the most delusional post so far I think.

More claims that you have answered the questions, when you haven't answered one.

More use of this "attacking", calling a creationist insane will happen when they present the "evidence" that they do, its laughable and fact-less. There is a reason as to why being a creation scientist is akin to being a vet for a unicorn. There is no evidence, never has been, and as it stands never will be. With each passing day the argument gets more and more laughable because it comes from the infancy of society and science.

You are the sole poster in this thread derailing anything, Evolution is fact, like it or not, you have no qualifications to say otherwise, and saying you do have some sort of science degree but they refuse to tell us does not count.

You are a fraud, and spreading this type of poison, weather it be on the internet or out in public, is toxic to society and the advancement of our understanding of the world we live in.

Call the above statement offensive if you want, I don't care. But you are putting a bullseye on your chest with the garbage that you put on here, so you will have to live with that.

Roger Hassenforder

J C wrote: »

Christians were persecuted and their faith was proscribed by the state right up to the time of Constantine. It is little wonder that all contemporaneous accounts of Jesus Christ should have been suppressed and destroyed, in so far as possible.
The accounts in the New Testament books are accurate and Jesus Christ lives ... and will Save you, if you ask.

that's very poor JC and you know it.
I'm all right for saving, thanks, save yourself, I wont need it!

J C

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

that's very poor JC and you know it.
I'm all right for saving, thanks, save yourself, I wont need it!

Its the truth and the truth will set your free.

floggg

J C wrote: »

It doesn't happen because it's an impossibility.

This also doesn't happen because it's an impossibility.

You're confusing the selection of pre-existing genetic CFSI diversity with the origin of the CFSI diversity itself.


The problem is that this doesn't match what real biomolecules are like. They have specific chains of amino acids ... and even one change in a critical sequence causes functionality to be destroyed.
Many evolutionists accept the odds against such systems being spontaneously generated, as being beyond the UPB ... but they hang onto their beliefs that it happened spontaneously, by inventing an infinity of multiverses acting for an infinity of time to try and mathematically overcome the massive odds against living systems spontaneously arising.

I note that you accept "evolution within a kind" type evolution.

How can that form of evolution exist, when it seems that any change that occurs is destructive and detrimental?

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

I have answered all questions posed to me, in so far as time has permitted.
You're the guys who haven't effectivley addressed my posting about the basis for ID ... despite a number of half-starts and failed attempts.

... and ye are also the guys now trying to derail the thread by attacking the person of Creationists with unfounded accusations of insanity rather than addressing their ideas as they relate to Darwinism.

Ye are the guys with all the invalid arguments ... and now ye have lowered yourselves and your arguments to the level unfounded name-calling.

Unfounded? you give all the ammo needed for people to "name call", which is piss poor debating, you don't like how things are going so cry foul when you "namecall" plenty yourself. The mask has well and truly slipped by now so people are just seeing you for the utter liar you are. Still not willing to produce those scientific credentials eh? did you get them from a cereal box? or did they come with the Big Creationist Book of Vegetarian T-Rexes: Kids Edition?

floggg

J C wrote: »

Quote:-
"Many people contributed to the writing of the Bible. Actually, the Bible is a collection of writings from about forty contributors, thirty in the Old Testament and ten in the New Testament.
For example, the Psalms are a collection of the works of several authors, of whom David, the "sweet singer of Israel", is the best known. But psalms were also written by Moses, by Asaph, by a man named Ethan, and by the sons of Korah.

The accounts which have been preserved in the Old Testament date from the earliest times and were both written down and communicated orally. As time passed, they were collected together and received by the Hebrews as coming to them by God's mandate. The prophets transmit God's message to humans, while many of the Psalms articulate cries of people to God. Both types of writing are preserved in the Bible as part of God's message to mankind.

The New Testament stories and teachings were widely circulated among the early Christian churches. The letters of Paul to the Christians in several cities were likely the earliest writings now found in the New Testament. But many other letters and epistles were circulated as well. Gradually it became clear to the early churches which writings were truly inspired and which were spurious or simply edifying messages from pious authors.

It is truly amazing that all forty of these authors, spread out over 1600 years, have such a unified message in spite of their great diversity in language, culture, and time. There is a reason for that! The reason is that these forty or so writers are all secondary authors. There is actually only one primary author, the one who inspired all the human authors, the eternal God.":)

so then God did say stone rape victims then?

Squeedily Spooch

JC already confirmed that the rules don't apply for other religions, so as a non Christian I have zero to worry about with regards to being saved, yay!

SaveOurLyric

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

How many atheists, considering the topic, end up thinking creationism is a correct explanation ?

It weighs on our mind often enough.

After all we EXIST. And that takes some big ass explaining

But feeble flapping from JC isnt going to answer that for us.

J C

Gintonious wrote: »

And here we have it, the most delusional post so far I think.

More claims that you have answered the questions, when you haven't answered one.

More use of this "attacking", calling a creationist insane will happen when they present the "evidence" that they do, its laughable and fact-less. There is a reason as to why being a creation scientist is akin to being a vet for a unicorn. There is no evidence, never has been, and as it stands never will be. With each passing day the argument gets more and more laughable because it comes from the infancy of society and science.

There are eminent scientists on both sides of this debate ... and as far as I can see Dawinism is a 'dead duck' ... and Creation Science is making rapid strides.

Gintonious wrote: »

You are the sole poster in this thread derailing anything, Evolution is fact, like it or not, you have no qualifications to say otherwise, and saying you do have some sort of science degree but they refuse to tell us does not count.

M2M Spontaneous Evolution is impossible ... and I do have the qualifications to say that.

Gintonious wrote: »

You are a fraud, and spreading this type of poison, weather it be on the internet or out in public, is toxic to society and the advancement of our understanding of the world we live in.

Call the above statement offensive if you want, I don't care. But you are putting a bullseye on your chest with the garbage that you put on here, so you will have to live with that.

I have a well founded difference of scientific opinion with you ... nothing more or less.
I have repeatedly asked ye to tell us what spontaneous mechanism provided the CFSI for NS to act upon ... and I haven't got a satisfatory answer.
I have presented the basis for ID .. and again I haven't got any invalidating answers from ye to this either.
... just old guff about me being insane, a fraud, toxic, poisonous and any other word of derision that ye can get from a dictionary to name-call me and my ideas.

EoghanIRL

Jc, tell us the area of your qualification .

J C

floggg wrote: »

so then God did say stone rape victims then?

The author was recording the Laws that the Israelites gave themselves ... just like He recorded the murder of Abel by Cain ... the Fall of Adam and Eve ... none of which He agreed with.

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

The author was recording the Laws that the Israelites gave themselves ... just like He recorded the murder of Abel by Cain ... the Fall of Adam and Eve ... none of which He agreed with.

And Jesus cursing a fig tree? surely the creator of all the universe would know what seasons HE made the tree's bear fruit in?

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

There are eminent scientists on both sides of this debate ... and as far as I can see Dawinism is a 'dead duck' ... and Creation Science is making rapid strides.

M2M Spontaneous Evolution is impossible ... and I do have the qualifications to say that.

I have a well founded difference of scientific opinion with you ... nothing more or less.
I have repeatedly asked ye to tell us what spontaneous mechanism provided the CFSI for NS to act upon ... and I haven't got a satisfatory answer.
I have presented the basis for ID .. and again I haven't got any invalidating answers from ye to this either.
... just old guff about me being insane, a fraud, toxic, poisonous and any other word of derision that ye can get from a dictionary to name-call me and my ideas.

Not this nonsense again, you've been given an answer by at least a half dozen posters, and just won't accept any of them.

Creationism is making strides? lollll, where? Between Creation scientists?

J C

Deleted User wrote: »

It weighs on our mind often enough.

After all we EXIST. And that takes some big ass explaining

Good point.

Deleted User wrote: »

But feeble flapping from JC isnt going to answer that for us.

I'm sorry if I don't match your high expectations ... but all I can do is present the 'cutting edge' science on the matter at hand.

If that's not enough, I can only apologise.

housetypeb

J C wrote: »

The author was recording the Laws that the Israelites gave themselves ... just like He recorded the murder of Abel by Cain ... the Fall of Adam and Eve ... none of which He agreed with.

Authors,not author. Do you get anything right?

J C

housetypeb wrote: »

Authors,not author. Do you get anything right?

The ultimate Author was God (singular).

Frank Bullitt

There are eminent scientists on both sides of this debate ... and as far as I can see Dawinism is a 'dead duck' ... and Creation Science is making rapid strides.

No there aren't, there are no scientists in the world worth mentioning that support creationism, it is purely faith based and has no evidence to support it at all.

M2M Spontaneous Evolution is impossible ... and I do have the qualifications to say that.

As has been asked many times before, prove it. As far as I am concerned, you are not qualified in the slightest, you are a fraud and a conman when it comes to this stuff, and it would be of benefit to all on boards if you were banned, and took your vile beliefs and claims with you.

I have a well founded difference of scientific opinion with you ... nothing more or less.
I have repeatedly asked ye to tell us what spontaneous mechanism provided the CFSI for NS to act upon ... and I haven't got a satisfatory answer.
I have presented the basis for ID .. and again I haven't got any invalidating answers from ye to this either.
... just old guff about me being insane, a fraud, toxic, poisonous and any other word of derision that ye can get from a dictionary to name-call me and my ideas.

Again, CFSI as far as google tells me, is a Canadian radio station, so please, keep trying on that one.

You have presented faith based rubbish, not the basis for anything other than opening yourself up to being seen as a lunatic, who needs to be helped.

You can expect to have what you say, and yourself for that matter, called names like the above, because they are very fitting to your position. You have the mentality and belief of someone from the early 1800's, not 2014. Most of what you preach is faith based rubbish, its called faith because it is not knowledge.

Your place in this argument (if we can call it that) is more comic than scientific, no evidence, nothing peer reviewed, just tired repeating in the hope that we somehow might believe you. Its pathetic.

housetypeb

You seem calmer,J C, basking in the afterglow?

J C

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

And Jesus cursing a fig tree? surely the creator of all the universe would know what seasons HE made the tree's bear fruit in?

He did ... but that wasn't the point ... the tree was in full leaf and wasn't bearing any fruit ... even unripened fruit.

... so it was useless as a fig tree (by not providing food for people to eat) ... and it therefore was selected by Jesus to be destroyed.

J C

J C wrote: »

I can present the matter at hand.

When you are ready

J C

housetypeb wrote: »

You seem calmer,J C, basking in the afterglow?

I'm always calm.:)

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

He did ... but that wasn't the point ... the tree was in full leaf and wasn't bearing any fruit ... even unripened fruit.

... so it was useless as a fig tree (by not providing food for people to eat) ... and it therefore was selected by Jesus to be destroyed.

So he cursed a tree not bearing fruit to...not bear fruit? That's like cursing a snake to forever crawl on it's belly. Wouldn't a snake already have been doing that? unless it...evolved.

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

The ultimate Author was God (singular).

So then he did want gays to be stoned to death? and women who were raped?

J C

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

So he cursed a tree not bearing fruit to...not bear fruit?

He judged the tree and it died (physically).

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

That's like cursing a snake to forever crawl on it's belly. Wouldn't a snake already have been doing that? unless it...evolved.

He judged Satan and he died (spiritually).

... and He will judge each one of us ... when we have chosen either eternal spiritual life or death.

J C

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

So then he did want gays to be stoned to death? and women who were raped?

He no more wanted that than He wanted Cain to murder Abel, Adam and Eve to Fall, King David to be an adulterous murderer, etc. etc.

... and if you don't believe me ... then could I ask you what Jesus Christ did with the woman caught in adultery when the crowd wanted to stone her ... He forgave her ... and showed the mob that wanted to stone her that they were a bunch of hypocrites ... scarlet as much in their own sins, as she was.

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

He judged the tree and it died (physically).

He judged Satan and he died (spiritually).

... and He will judge each one of us ... when we have chosen either eternal spiritual life or death.

But I won't be judged, you already said the rules don't apply if you're not of the same religion, so I get a free pass

Supergurrier

Love how a thread about evolution has become about sexual preference and religion. (Neither of which I could care two hoots about as its none of my business what people do behind closed doors or choose to believe)

You really couldnt make it up.

J C

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

But I won't be judged, you already said the rules don't apply if you're not of the same religion, so I get a free pass

God is outside of man-made religions ... He will give each person (of all religions and none) the choice of being Saved or not ... of choosing eternal spiritual life or not.

Brian Shanahan

housetypeb wrote: »

So you turn the other cheek-but still protest? Logic has no meaning to you.

We have discovered over on A&A long ago that he is the anti-Spock. And yes that does also mean that he has a large ego which is easily bruised.