SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
So you cannot refute any of my claims.You have proved only your own ignorance of science, logic, mathematics, and what the word 'proof' means.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Of course I can. Everybody and their dog could refute your silly claims.
What I can't do is stop you from totally ignoring all the refutations you've already had and just running away because you seem to be too scared to even think about them....
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
No.
that is why there is nothing in your post.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
There's nothing in any of your posts but silly assertions and vacuous denial. People have already addressed your various claims in detail and you've just ignored it and gone on making the claims.
Not only is that not a very honest way of conducting yourself but it just makes it pointless to put any effort into giving you the detail again.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
This is like a virtual slap in the face of all those who were victim of slavery.
Don't need to imagine such a world. You live in such world, where all forms of slavery are illegal.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Try actually reading the replies.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Here are a few articles on the topic for you to ignore
Chromosome Fusion Affects Genetic Diversity and Evolutionary Turnover of Functional Loci but Consistently Depends on Chromosome Size
Major changes in chromosome number and structure are linked to a series of evolutionary phenomena, including intrinsic barriers to gene flow or suppression of recombination due to chromosomal rearrangements. However, chromosome rearrangements can also ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13–2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes - PMC
Human chromosome 2 was formed by the head-to-head fusion of two ancestral chromosomes that remained separate in other primates. Sequences that once resided near the ends of the ancestral chromosomes are now interstitially located in 2q13–2q14.1. ...
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
It's kind of hard to respond to absolute nonsense.
There is nothing in your claims to refute. At best, one might try and count the amount of fallacious flaws in them.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
How did the giraffe get its long neck?
Evolutionists must believe in Lamarckis.
changing number of chromosomes?
This has come up on some other threads.... How can the number of chromosomes a species has change as the species evolves? For instance how can two species that share a common ancestor each have different numbers of chromosomes? How does this work???? What happens????
www.religiousforums.com
This is not a mystery to rational educated minds
The fact that you find this wildly bewildering speaks volumes
The Big Man In The Sky most certainly didn't do it
McBell
Unbound
Well see, the first ever giraffe was complaining to god about be on the same level as all the other animals, so to appease the giraffe, god stretched its neck, so that the giraffe can be above all the other animals.
So if you do not have a long neck, you can pretty much figure you are not favored by god.
McBell
Unbound
Please see post#2413
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
So, evolutionists have no clue whatsoever.
There was no reason for a longer neck as there was plenty of food at the ground and lower levels even up to 10 feet. A few giraffes that were a foot taller does not provide any survival advantage, as they cannot reach the upper vegetation.
And a longer neck presents all kinds of blood pressure and blood flow problems between a giraffe with head bent to the ground and a neck stretched up.
In fact, the giraffe has special valves in its neck to allow such, but how did they evolve?
That change is too complex to have evolved all at once and provides no advantage until all in place.
In fact, it would cause a real problem with survival if only partially formed.
So, God made the giraffe with the longer neck and the special valves.
You make a mistake by thinking that the evolution issue is a debate like abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, or tax
It isn't and some opinions are more worthless than others
Because evolution is not a matter of opinion like abortion..... it is a matter of fact
And you are wrong
You're not even a biologist
So do us all a favour and stop talking about things you don't understand
Doing so makes you look foolish
You are treating it like a debate and it isn't
The experts say you're wrong
Last edited:
AdamjEdgar
Active Member
I know this is 121 pages after you wrote this, however, i would just like to point out that this model is fundamentally flawed and doesnt work!
The problem is, the mere claim that all YEC science is pseudo science means that our methods are stopped immediately after the binary "Procedure Working -Yes/No" and then discounted and thrown out!
Secular humanism only allows for Data analysis that aligns with an already accepted claim "there is no God" and anything that does not agree with that claim never gets parts Procedure Working Binary YES/NO!
It is bull**** to claim that Creation Scientists cannot repeat their results or that their claims are not peer reviewed. Any accredited scientist may peer review publicly and so it does not matter to the mainstream secular view that the vast majority of secular institutions will not even allow YEC scientific research to be submitted for peer review!
Also the claim that some of the YEC science is wrong is absolutely true...we dont dissagree with that. However, i will bet a ****load more secular scientists are wrong in their research than YEC ones so this argument is ridiculous!
I will also respond to the post immediately above...
The "experts say you are wrong"
Which experts might that be YEC Christian experts or secular humanism ones who say there is no God (such as the late Stephen Hawking or, Christopher Dawkins)?
The argument "experts say", is bull**** and not an answer! The secular conclusions are interpretive, not fact...so please dump this argument, its timewasting and not relevant. You are simply playing numbers games, ie we have more than you do!
Finally, the real problem is that in all of these kinds of debates, the historical evidence appears to have been completely ignored.There are literally thousands of artifacts of historical evidence that support both the historicity of the biblical account of history (eg the archeological discovery proving the biblical narrative claim of the existence of the Hittites despite secular "experts" claiming it was bull**** prior to this recent discovery), and the theological claims of YECism over the false TEism error.
Last edited:
Go ahead and refute it if you think you can. Hint" If it's correct, you can't.
Critical thought requires that a conclusion be shown to be sound before being believed. Come up with a sound, evidenced argument ending, "therefore, God," and you pass the skeptic's test and make him a theist. But once again, if you are wrong and this god doesn't exist, you won't be able to do that. You cannot convince a critical thinker with less than sound argument.
Sure they will. But if it's pseudoscience or otherwise doesn't rise to academic and scientific standards, it will be rejected as it should.
AdamjEdgar
Active Member
ah see thats just opened the most obvious and easy answer i think i have ever had to make on this forum...
you are left with no option but to adhear to Pascals Wager!
The point is, we all want to live. That i think is a general tendency for humanity. We strive to survive.
Now given that we strive to survive, at the end of the day you are left with a simple binary choice...
Believe in God or not.
Caveats to consider about the philosophical position of God:
Like a club, you are not a member unless you actively choose to become one and engage with that club. Christianity is no different. If it turns out God as described in the proven historical account of the narrative of the Bible turns out to be true...
Unless you actually choose God and actively participate in Christianity, just like the Bible itself states...you cannot be saved.
There is no automatic salvation.
That is the dilemma of pascals wager where it is better to choose Christianity and believe in it faithfully, than not.
Because if you choose "no God" and I choose "God" and i lose, i suffer the exact same fate as you.
However, if there is a God, then you lose and i win!
I know many people who play the lottery with far less at stake than the possibility of life after death.
(so if you want to critically think, id suggest you have some serious thinking to do)
Last edited:
McBell
Unbound
So I take it you believe in every proposed deity through out history?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, this is an immediate failure on your part. You ignored the argument. The reason that all YEC "science" is pseudoscience is because they do not follow the scientific method. And here is the point . . . No one is stopping them from doing that. No one is forcing them to do that. The reason that so many of them use pseudoscience is because when they follow the scientific method their nonsense gets refuted rather quickly. That once again is their fault.
Not at all. Where did you get that crazy claim from? Sorry, but this is a pure falsehood on your part. They do not assume that there is not God. If someone wants to claim that there is a god that is fine. but the burden of proof is upon the person that claims god exists. If they cannot support that claim they are rightfully ignored.
No, it is not. Also I did not say that they could not repeat their results. The problem is that they do not follow the scientific method. But you do not even know what the scientific method is.
Well that is just pure ignorance on your part. I will challenge you to learn the scientific method and then try to apply it to your mythical YEC beleifs.
Sorry, but to be an "expert" in the sciences one does have to follow the scientific method. Dawkins is a valid expert, in his field. Which is biological evolution. If one relies on Dawkins for "proof" that God does not exist that would be a mistake. Hawking was an expert, again in his field. One thing that both of them were right on is that there does not appear to be any need for a God. That of course does not "disprove god". But theist often make the false claim that god's existence is obvious when it clearly is not.
There is nothing wrong with using proper experts that can justify their claims in their fields. Once again, using them outside of their fields would be an error.
Now are you done ranting? Will you "put your money where your mouth is" so to speak and learn the scientific method? Will you lean what is and what is not scientific evidence? You can't complain about the fact that creationism is pseudoscience if you refuse to learn what science is in the first place.