The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

Perfect! Well thats it, im sold. Creationism is right. :rolleyes:

I just knew that you would eventually 'see the light'!!!:D:)

stevejazzx

J C wrote: »

Is this a photo of YOU.....or some other Evolutionist, perhaps!!!:D:eek::)

.......and is this the latest Evolutionist 'Tome' that he is holding???!!!:D:eek::)

no
evolutionist




creationist

J C

stevejazzx wrote: »

...I give up...take me to your leader!

Does this mean that you are ready to become a Christian then???

stevejazzx

J C wrote: »

Does this mean that you are ready to become a Christian then???

Do you promise to stop saying things like 'muck to man', if so I'll become a fully fledged chrsitian...I'll take one for the team as it were!

J C

stevejazzx wrote: »

no
evolutionist




creationist

.....so an Evolutionist is a diembodied (and therefore dead) brain......

.....while a Creationist is a very beautiful, intelligent young women......who was so lucky ....that she won a million pounds ........with the easiest question ever asked by Chris Tarrant!!!!

......I see!!!:D:)

I don't know about you.....but I would prefer to go out for a drink with the Creationist ........rather that the dead brain!!!:D

stevejazzx

Actually that pic is a hoax..
I just knew you'd go for it!


Try this one




I can feel the wrath of old testament Brain heading my way quite soon!:)

Ekancone

stevejazzx wrote: »

Actually that pic is a hoax..
I just knew you'd go for it!

JC response: Just like the evolutionary hoax!!!:D:)

Im so glad you can see the light of our saviour the christ!!!:):):D

stevejazzx

daithifleming wrote: »

JC response: Just like the evolutionary hoax!!!:D:)

Im so glad you can see the light of our saviour the christ!!!:):):D

...for Gods sake man don't you see what's happened you?
you've been tangoed by a young earther..quick! to the batcave..

Ekancone

stevejazzx wrote: »

...for Science's sake man don't you see what's happened you?
you've been tangoed by a young earther..quick! to the batcave..

Just fixed your post.

5uspect

J C wrote: »

The Bible isn't a science textbook....it is focussed on people .....and not the natural history of animals......

AiG wrote:

For an elaboration of AiG’s presuppositional thrust check out our Get Answers section—for example, learn how the Bible offers the best explanation of the world’s geology, anthropology, and astronomy.

Now J C isn't even toeing the AiG line. 2008 has been in interesting year so far.

stevejazzx

daithifleming wrote: »

Just fixed your post.

hmmmm I'm sensing subversion...quick! the water tank!

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

IF there is the genetic information to turn on teeth within the chicken genome......it only proves the amazing density of information provided in the first created Chicken Kind by God.......

No, actually it "proves" Neo-Darwinian Biological Evolution, it "proves" that :eek:

Zombrex

stevejazzx wrote: »

ROFL

Brilliant

J C

stevejazzx wrote: »

Do you promise to stop saying things like 'muck to man', if so I'll become a fully fledged chrsitian...I'll take one for the team as it were!

One of the most unusual requests from a new Christian.......
.....anyway, I will 'sanitise' the phrase to 'molecules to man'....in future!!!:D

Zombrex

5uspect wrote: »

Now J C isn't even toeing the AiG line. 2008 has been in interesting year so far.

Well it is difficult since the AiG line keeps changing.

First they claimed that there were no transitional fossils ever discovered, and this fit perfectly with Creationism which predicted that there wouldn't be any transitional fossils because animals don't change or evolve, which fits perfectly with the truth that has been revealed by God.

Now of course they say yes there are lots of transitional fossils that have actually been found, yet amazingly this also fits perfectly with Creationism which seemingly now predicts that these transitional fossils would be found because animals not only evolve, they evolve very very quickly, allowing the small number of species on the Ark to grow into the hundreds of thousands around today.

So you have to forgive JC and Wolfsbane for being a little behind the current AiG nonsense. I'm sure they will catch up next week.

J C

Originally Posted by J C
IF there is the genetic information to turn on teeth within the chicken genome......it only proves the amazing density of information provided in the first created Chicken Kind by God.......

Wicknight wrote: »

No, actually it "proves" Neo-Darwinian Biological Evolution, it "proves" that :eek:

Keep repeating this 'mantra'......and you may eventually come to believe it!!!:D:)

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

......the AiG line keeps changing.

First they claimed that there were no transitional fossils ever discovered, and this fit perfectly with Creationism which predicted that there wouldn't be any transitional fossils because animals don't change or evolve, which fits perfectly with the truth that has been revealed by God.

Now of course they say yes there are lots of transitional fossils that have actually been found, yet amazingly this also fits perfectly with Creationism which seemingly now predicts that these transitional fossils would be found because animals not only evolve, they evolve very very quickly, allowing the small number of species on the Ark to grow into the hundreds of thousands around today.

Transitional fossils (between Kinds) have never been found!!!!!!:D:eek:

....and rapid speciation (within Kinds) is an established scientific FACT!!!:eek::D

stevejazzx

J C wrote: »

Transitional fossils (between Kinds) have never been found!!!!!!:D:eek:

It is commonly stated by critics of evolution that there are no known transitional fossils.[1] This position is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature. A common creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. It is plausible, however, that a complex feature with one function can adapt a wholly different function through evolution. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been meant for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings can still have all of these functions, but they are also used in active flight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

J C

stevejazzx wrote: »

Try this one




I can feel the wrath of old testament Brain heading my way quite soon!:)

I suppose, you can write almost anything under a colour photograph........

.......a bit like the 'fairytale' that I recently saw ........ written under a colour drawing of a Dinosaur in an Evolutionist book!!!:eek::D

stevejazzx

J C wrote: »

I suppose, you can write almost anything under a colour photograph........

.......a bit like the 'fairytale' that I saw recently........ under a colour drawing of a Dinosaur in an Evolutionist book!!!:D:)

was it this one ?

J C

stevejazzx wrote: »

Actually that pic is a hoax..
I just knew you'd go for it!

daithifleming wrote: »

JC response: Just like the evolutionary hoax!!!:D:)

Im so glad you can see the light of our saviour the christ!!!:):):D

I suppose it is a mark of success when the Evolutionists start writing excellent Creationist reposts for me on this thread .........

......keep up the good work Daithi......while I go make a cup of Tea!!!:D:)

J C

J C wrote: »

I suppose, you can write almost anything under a colour photograph........

.......a bit like the 'fairytale' that I saw recently........ under a colour drawing of a Dinosaur in an Evolutionist book!!!

stevejazzx wrote: »

was it this one ?

Another work of Evolutionist artistic fiction ........that is right up there with Darwin's 'Origins of Species' !!!!:eek::D

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Transitional fossils (between Kinds) have never been found!!!!!!:D:eek:

....and rapid speciation (within Kinds) is an established scientific FACT!!!:eek::D

Ah yes, lets have a little look at what you sneakly added in there

"between Kinds"

So you admit that transitional fossils between species have been found

Because that would make quite a change of tune from your earlier posts

:rolleyes:

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Ah yes, lets have a little look at what you sneakly added in there

"between Kinds"

So you admit that transitional fossils between specieshave been found

Because that would make quite a change of tune from your earlier posts

:rolleyes:

Speciation can be very rapid......and many speciations (like the Triangle of U) are INSTANTANEOUS!!!!:D:)

pH

Wicknight wrote: »

Ah yes, lets have a little look at what you sneakly added in there

"between Kinds"

So you admit that transitional fossils between species have been found

Because that would make quite a change of tune from your earlier posts

:rolleyes:

Careful, careful, he wants us to re-ask him for the definition of a 'kind'.

Then when he replies "Groupings of species between which transitional fossils have never been found" ... he WINS!

Careful now.

J C

pH wrote: »

Careful, careful, he wants us to re-ask him for the definition of a 'kind'.

Then when he replies "Groupings of species between which transitional fossils have never been found" ... he WINS!

Careful now.

.....actually, all I really want you to do ......is to save your eternal soul!!!!

sadly,

J C

pH

J C wrote: »

.....actually, all I really want you to do ......is to save your eternal soul!!!!

sadly,

J C

You think that accepting that there is scientific evidence for 4.5 billion year old earth and evolution will prevent someone being saved and going to heaven?

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote: »

JC wrote:

IF there is the genetic information to turn on teeth within the chicken genome......it only proves the amazing density of information provided in the first created Chicken Kind by God.......
......and I will look carefully before extending my hand to any unknown chickens in future!!!!

You've just plagarised Scofflaw now...

Well, I'm a much better Creation Scientists than JC.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Speciation can be very rapid

Do you admit that there are transitional fossils that demonstrate the evolutionary change between one speices and another?

stevejazzx

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, I'm a much better Creation Scientists than JC.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Admittedly you did put it better...probably becasue you're mulitple!:)