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.

[ratiocinator]

Yet there is only one book, the Bible, that can stand the test.

What test? The bible is an incoherent, self-contradictory mess.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How did the giraffe get its long neck?

Because in the niche its ancestors inhabited, there was selection pressure to reach ever-higher.

Just like with the Wallace's Sphinx moth, there was a selection pressure to reach ever-deeper inside orchids to get to food, giving it a ridiculously long tongue.


Evolution isn't rocket science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That change is too complex to have evolved all at once and provides no advantage until all in place.

Evolution is gradual. No thing evolves "all at once".
Try learning a bit on the topic before trying to argue against it, making yourself look like a fool.

In fact, it would cause a real problem with survival if only partially formed.

There is no such thing as "partially formed" in evolution.
Just like there is no such thing as "partial spanish". Every language spoken in every generation over the course of history from latin to spanish, was its own complete language.

No latin speaking mother raised a spanish speaking child.
At no point in history did people speak "half spanish".

Go read a text from 1000 AD written in London. It wasn't english. Nore was it "half english".
It was its own language. Similar to english for sure. Similar to what came before it also. But no "half" anything.

So, God made the giraffe with the longer neck and the special valves.

What an amateur inefficient, wastefull designer, having nerves go from the neck all the way down to loop around the aorta only to go all the way up again to end up 1 inch from where it started.

This is akin to me running a cable from your basement all the way to your attic only to go all the way down again to plug it into the modem 1 inch of where the cable entered the basement. I'ld fire the telecom dude who did that and refuse to pay for the work.


In evolutionary context though, this is perfectly explainable and expected.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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!

This is utterly false. And if you use this falsehood as a premise for the rest of your post, then only bs will follow.

It is bull**** to claim that Creation Scientists cannot repeat their results or that their claims are not peer reviewed.

It is not. They don't even have results, because they don't even conduct any research.
They aren't peer reviewed because they don't publish in peer reviewed journals.
In fact, they have never even attempted to do so.
They don't, because they know they have nothing to publish.

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!

This is a lie. Anybody can submit their stuff to journals and if their stuff is cleared in terms of format, it will be published.
The fact is that no creationist, to my knowledge at least, has ever even attempted to do this. Wherever you have heared that they aren't "allowed" to even submit their stuff, has been lying to you.

Also the claim that some of the YEC science is wrong is absolutely true...

There is no "YEC science".

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!

There is no such argument. There is NO YEC science. Religious beliefs are not science.

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)?

Christopher Dawkins? Lol!
I guess you are conflating Christopher Hitchins, who was not a scientist, and Richard Dawkins, a well-respected and well-published biology professor.

As for which "experts", he likely just means publishing scientists working in the relevant fields.
You know... people who actually do proper research and publish their results in proper scientific channels, who don't commit to a "statement of faith" where they promise to start with the conclusion and then try and "work their way back" while acknowledging that no evidence or data or whatever will ever sway them from the conclusion they decided before hand must be true.

The argument "experts say", is bull**** and not an answer!

It isn't. There is no problem at all with going with the experts of a given field when one isn't qualified themselves.
When you are in need of medical assitance, you also consult an expert of the medical field, aka a doctor. You don't go see your car mechanic, now do you?

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!

Nope. It's not a numbers game. It's an evidence game. Science has evidence. YECs have beliefs.

Finally, the real problem is that in all of these kinds of debates, the historical evidence appears to have been completely ignored.

The only ones here who are literally committed to ignoring evidence, are those people who commit to a "statement of faith", where they commit to a certain conclusion even before asking the questions. These are creationists, not "secular" scientists. Scientists will go wherever the evidence takes them. Creationists on the other hand will decide in advanced where they want to end up and will then grasp at anything which they can "interpret" as leading there while ignoring everything else.

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),

So what? I don't know about this, because frankly I don't even care. But if the bible mentions tribes of people that end up being accurate - so what?
The bible also mentions loads of things which are demonstrably false when taken literally (adam and eve, global flood, living in a fish for 3 days, the sun standing still in the sky, etc), but I bet you will happily ignore all the evidence that disproves those things and will happily misrepresent to evidence to pretend it's supported, right?

and the theological claims of YECism over the false TEism error.

I don't even know what you mean by this.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

that is bull and you know it is.

It's not and it is EASILY shown that it's not.

what is used as fact in your claim is that there are on occasion some who do not follow appropriate method...however, even these claims are in quite a number of cases disputed.

By whom? Lemme guess: creationists?

Again, you ignore the usual claim in all of this...the issue is that peer review using secular institutions is largely impossible and its not because there is necessarily anything wrong with the method being used. Its quite often simply because the research aims to prove mainstream scientific interpretations wrong!

Again, there is no YEC research. No YEC to my knowledge has every conducted a proper study and attempted to get that study published by submitting it to a journal.

Name me an example if you think there is one.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok I'll ask you the same question. How do you as a believer in the process of evolution figure the giraffe developed such an outstandingly long neck?

By the same principles that the Wallace's Sphinx moth developed a ridiculously long tongue: selection pressures for ever longer necks / tongues.



Also: I find it quite humorous what that question is hiding / implying. What if we answer that we haven't figured it out yet? That we don't know?
Why do you ask this question? Could it perhaps be because you are trying to set up a ginormous argument from ignorance? That because we don't know how a giraffe neck evolved (which you seem to be thinking - why else ask the question), that this somehow gives some credibility to the "god dun it" claim?

 

[McBell]

Yet there is only one book, the Bible, that can stand the test.

Which book of the Bible is the one and only book that can stand the test?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Which book of the Bible is the one and only book that can stand the test?

The King James Bible, 1769 Blayney

And multiple versions of THE word of God, THE Bible is delusional which the word of God predicted with exact timing and exact detail.

 

[McBell]

The King James Bible, 1769 Blayney

And multiple versions of THE word of God, THE Bible is delusional which the word of God predicted with exact timing and exact detail.

Which of the 66 books in the Bible is the one true book that can stand the test?

Please pay attention this time to the fact that I flat out said "Book of the Bible" not Version of the Bible...

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Which of the 66 books in the Bible is the one true book that can stand the test?

Please pay attention this time to the fact that I flat out said "Book of the Bible" not Version of the Bible...

All 66 of them.

 

[McBell]

All 66 of them.

Make up your mind.
Either there is one true book that can stand the test or there are 66 true books that can stand the test.

Is it possible you don't math so good?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Make up your mind.
Either there is one true book that can stand the test or there are 66 true books that can stand the test.

Is it possible you don't math so good?

If someone goes to a book store or order a King James Bible on line, they will receive one book.

 

[McBell]

If someone goes to a book store or order a King James Bible on line, they will receive one book.

You do know that the very word Bible means "from phrase biblia sacra "holy books," a translation of Greek ta biblia to hagia "the holy books.""
So the very definition of the word Bible is "a collection of holy books."

So, which of the 66 books of the Bible is the one true book that can stand the test?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You do know that the very word Bible means "from phrase biblia sacra "holy books," a translation of Greek ta biblia to hagia "the holy books.""
So the very definition of the word Bible is "a collection of holy books."

So, which of the 66 books of the Bible is the one true book that can stand the test?

If someone goes to a book store or order a King James Bible on line, they will receive one book.

If someone ask an evolutionist and billions of years person for the answer to the origin of anything they will give no rational answer,

The following all show that evolution and billions of years are false. They also prove the Bible is true, and that God created all things in 6-day, about 6000 years ago.

Each of these either directly refute evolutionists claims and/or are questions they have no answer for. It is like a comedy where the evolutionists say, “ask us anything about origins”. So, you start asking them questions. And each time they say, “I do not know”. After a while you give up, they then say, “is there any other origin question that you want us to answer?”

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.
This is it in a nutshell.
We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).
Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.

 

[McBell]

If someone goes to a book store or order a King James Bible on line, they will receive one book.

You made the claim of there being only one book to be the one to stand the test.
Therefore, by your own proclamation, the Bible does not count because it is a collection of 66 books.

So you have failed once again.

Since the rest of your above quoted post is nothing more than you desperately trying to draw attention away from your epic fail...

 

[Esteban X]

If someone goes to a book store or order a King James Bible on line, they will receive one book.

If someone ask an evolutionist and billions of years person for the answer to the origin of anything they will give no rational answer,

The following all show that evolution and billions of years are false. They also prove the Bible is true, and that God created all things in 6-day, about 6000 years ago.

Each of these either directly refute evolutionists claims and/or are questions they have no answer for. It is like a comedy where the evolutionists say, “ask us anything about origins”. So, you start asking them questions. And each time they say, “I do not know”. After a while you give up, they then say, “is there any other origin question that you want us to answer?”

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.
This is it in a nutshell.
We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).
Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.

We're still waiting for your proofs. Where are they? All I see here is a misrepresentation and/or a gross misunderstanding of science
It also sounds like direct quotes from Kent Hovind, which does nothing to help your case.

 

[John53]

It is like a comedy where the evolutionists say, “ask us anything about origins”.

Show some examples of evolutionists saying "ask us anything about origins" or admit you're making this up.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Show some examples of evolutionists saying "ask us anything about origins" or admit you're making this up.

So you have no answer to the origin of anything.
Please now admit that you have no clue where anything came from.
Thanks you just admitted that evolution Is indeed the theory of nothing.

 

[John53]

So you have no answer to the origin of anything.
Please now admit that you have no clue where anything came from.
Thanks you just admitted that evolution Is indeed the theory of nothing.

You didn't provide your evidence so you made it up.

 

[ratiocinator]

So you have no answer to the origin of anything.

There are plenty of things we know the origin of. The origin of your absurd claims is clearly dishonest creationist propaganda.