The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm glad I am contributing to your further education

Thanks Wicknight.......
......always willing to learn......that's me!!!!:D:)

J C

nerin wrote: »

i dunno,its starting to get clearer with your posts lol

Good!!!;):D

Nerin

*hopes jc understands the joke*

J C

5uspect wrote: »

........ You seem completely oblivious to the decades of testing, modeling, observation and retesting that have gone into the theory and has shown it to be both accurate and robust......... .

...and all of this effort seems to have only produced a 'Gnat'.......
........but come to think of it, even a Gnat DIDN'T spontaneously evolve from Primordial Slime EITHER!!!!:D

5uspect

Got any papers for us J C?

J C

5uspect wrote: »

I would just like to see a level playing field.
[/grumble]

So would I........

.....with about 100 Evolutionists and just ONE Creation Scientist on this thread.....I guess the 'playing field' must have a sixty degree slope INTO the Creationist 'goal'.......yet the Evolutionists haven't even got into the Creationist 'half' of the field yet!!!!:eek::D

....and all of the Evolutionist 'shots at goal' have resulted in 'own goals'!!!!:D

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

So would I........

.....with about 100 Evolutionists and just ONE Creation Scientist on this thread.....I guess the 'playing field' must have a sixty degree slope INTO the Creationist 'goal'.......yet the Evolutionists haven't even got into the Creationist 'half' of the field yet!!!!:eek::D

Too much fog.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

5uspect wrote: »

Got any papers for us J C?

I was hoping that you had a few papers on the transition from Primordial Slime to Man for us???!!:D

Ciaran500

J C wrote: »

I was hoping that you had a few papers on the transition from Primordial Slime to Man for us???!!:D

Is that a no? Or just trying to dodge any question possible in your traditional fashion?


EDIT: Just noticed something, you're using the quote function o_O
Are you evolving?

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

Too much fog.

cordially,
Scofflaw

.......caused by Evolutionist hot air meeting Creationist cold logic, no doubt!!:eek::D

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

......despite the best efforts of some of the best Evolutionist 'brains' who have attempted, but failed, to counter any of my substantive arguments........

Maybe... but only because you have, thus far, failed to provide any substantive arguments to counter.

Nerin

cold logic????????
nyahhh! :eek:

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

Maybe... but only because you have, thus far, failed to provide any substantive arguments to counter.

The 'flack' coming in from the 'Evolutionist Camp' would indicate that I HAVE made substantial arguments that they are unable to counter!!!:eek::D

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

The 'flack' coming in from the 'Evolutionist Camp' would indicate that I HAVE made substantial arguments that they are unable to counter!!!:eek::D

Maybe you should restate them for the benefit of those who didn't catch them the 1st time around (me included). Just so we're all on the same page.

5uspect

J C wrote: »

I was hoping that you had a few papers on the transition from Primordial Slime to Man for us???!!:D

Well have you gotten through this lot yet?

No papers then? You continuously dodge this question here and here to name but two occasions.

You do realise, you should by now as its been pointed out to you enough times, that even if you do show evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution; that in no way verifies creationism? You've yet to show that your ideas are anything approaching scientific. All you've demonstrated so far is an ability to so completely misunderstand science that you're running around in circles for the amusement of those that post here.

So J C I'll ask you again. Can you cite me a journal paper, volume number, and page number that is factually incorrect and you have evidence against? Can you show me where in the literature abiogenesis is going wrong? Can you show me in which papers the evolution of large organisms like mammals has been misunderstood. Surely you've done the research?

stevejazzx

Ciaran500 wrote: »

EDIT: Just noticed something, you're using the quote function o_O
Are you evolving?

Yes he is!! Wow! Now all we have to do is wait 4 bilion years and his posts might start to make sense..then again if he's still talking rubbish after all that time he'll have ironically proved himself right...that muck really can't become man.

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

.......caused by Evolutionist hot air meeting Creationist cold logic, no doubt!!:eek::D

You're definitely feeling better! You must introduce us to some of these coldly logical Creationists.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nerin

Yes he is!! Wow! Now all we have to do is wait 4 bilion years and his posts might start to make sense..then again if he's still talking rubbish after all that time he'll have ironically proved himself right...that muck really can't become man.

lol

J C

nerin wrote: »

*hopes jc understands the joke*

"hopes nerin ALSO understands joke!!":D

.....or to paraphrase Confucius ......

Confucius he say, he who laughs last, laughs loudest......
.....because he gets Evolutionist meaning!!!!:D:)

Nerin

the sad thing is that u keep using me to dodge all these peoples valid questions.

J C

5uspect wrote: »

Well have you gotten through this lot yet?

WHICH lot....you have provided NO papers!!!:D

5uspect wrote: »

You do realise, you should by now as its been pointed out to you enough times, that even if you do show evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution; that in no way verifies creationism?

I agree.....but I have found that it is a good start.....and it gets people looking in the right direction!!!:eek::D

5uspect wrote: »

You've yet to show that your ideas are anything approaching scientific. All you've demonstrated so far is an ability to so completely misunderstand science that you're running around in circles for the amusement of those that post here.

'Flack'!!!:D

5uspect wrote: »

So J C I'll ask you again. Can you cite me a journal paper, volume number, and page number that is factually incorrect and you have evidence against?

I have no problem with most of the papers....but then they don't support a 'Primordial molecules to Man' interpretation anyhow!!!!:D

5uspect wrote: »

Can you show me where in the literature abiogenesis is going wrong?

Could you show me ANY literature, which indicates that abiogenesis (edit) even exists!!!:D

5uspect wrote: »

Can you show me in which papers the evolution of large organisms like mammals has been misunderstood. Surely you've done the research?

I have seen no papers which show that Primordial molecules spontaneously evolved into mammals!!!:D

With loving thoughts

J C

5uspect

J C wrote: »

WHICH lot....you have provided NO papers!!!:D

Apologies I inserted the incorrect link, here it is:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54104481&postcount=7248

I have no problem with most of the papers

Then lets discuss the ones you do have a problem with.

Could you show me ANY literature, which indicates that biogenesis even exists!!!

Do you even know the difference between biogenesis and abiogenesis?
Here is the evidence

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

'Flack'!!!:D

Flak! Not "flack".

J C wrote: »

Could you show me ANY literature, which indicates that biogenesis even exists!!!:D

Abiogenesis? Biogenesis is kind of inarguable.

J C wrote: »

I have seen no papers which show that Primordial molecules spontaneously evolved into mammals!!!:D

Nor are you likely to, because no-one asserts that "primordial molecules spontaneously evolved into mammals". Well, except you, obviously - but you're on your own there.

cordially,
Scofflaw

2Scoops

Scofflaw wrote: »

Flak! Not "flack".

'Flack' is an acceptable variant according to the Oxford dictionary - I'm really losing respect for that thing!!

Scofflaw

2Scoops wrote: »

'Flack' is an acceptable variant according to the Oxford dictionary - I'm really losing respect for that thing!!

You are not the first - but then the OED is only absolutely definitive in Scrabble. Flak is from the German Flugabwehrkanone, aircraft defence cannon, which contains no 'c', so I can't really see any justification for 'flack' except as a misspelling, since the British term was ack-ack, not flak. The OED will include it if it is sufficiently common - I don't know if "teh" is in there yet, but if it is I shall give up entirely.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Mad Hatter

Scofflaw wrote: »

You are not the first - but then the OED is only absolutely definitive in Scrabble. Flak is from the German Flugabwehrkanone, aircraft defence cannon, which contains no 'c', so I can't really see any justification for 'flack' except as a misspelling, since the British term was ack-ack, not flak. The OED will include it if it is sufficiently common - I don't know if "teh" is in there yet, but if it is I shall give up entirely.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Evidence of evolution in spelling perhaps? After all, commonly accepted spelling now is just due to generations of spelling mistakes.

Mayhap Jay See woulde preferre if we spake et writ thusly?

kingdomofgod123

Creationism comes in several forms, including Young Earth Creationism, Old earth Creationism, and Progressive Creationism. Many confuse Intelligent Design with Creationism and while they certainly have many parallels, they are not the same thing.

robindch

KOG wrote:

they are not the same thing

Indeed, they're not. Each one differs substantially from the others in the amount of disagreeable, secular evidence they brush under the carpet.

btw, what's the connection between PC and Green Valley Evangelical Lutheran Church?

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

btw, what's the connection between PC and Green Valley Evangelical Lutheran Church?

I don't know, but that girl is smoking :eek:

robindch

Wicknight wrote:

I don't know, but that girl is smoking

Aye, I'd go along to GVELC just to see if she could convert me. Praise be! Can't understand what the "10-2-10" thing is though. Any ideas? Can't be the time, as the 10-2-10 service starts at 0945h.

And anybody familiar with communism must find the youth page a bit eerie