Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Bunyip]

Or the word fails to render the definition you wish to apply. A theory means a theory.....evolution is what some people "believe" took place....it is not a fact however, no matter how you mess with the definition.

Adding the word "scientific" only makes it sound like fact. It is a skewing of the true definition....verbal sleight of hand.

Wow! That was just shameful. Have you no sense of honesty whatsoever?

 

[McBell]

Wow! That was just shameful. Have you no sense of honesty whatsoever?

Careful or you will be put in the same "your an *** hole for pointing out lies and dishonesty" boat as me.

 

[JayJayDee]

ROTFLMAO

You know what they say about he who laughs last, don't you?

Your bold empty threats are still most comical.

Not quite as funny as your hooded dark and mysterious man with the red eyes. Oh sooo scary!
I think this would be more appropriate personally.....just sayin.....

My puppies are not threatening at all.

If you do not wish to be called a liar, stop lying.
If you wish to stop having your dishonesty pointed out, stop being dishonest.
It really is a simple concept.

And one you simply cannot comprehend....when have I lied?
The definition is right there for all to see.
I didn't change the meaning of the word to suit my agenda, your scientists did.

Now I shall allow you the last word.

Hopefully you won't waste it with more bold empty threats.

Oh, the old "bold empty threat" response again...twice in one post.......

You got the bold part right anyhow....

 

[JayJayDee]

Wow! That was just shameful. Have you no sense of honesty whatsoever?

Oh good grief! What are you two, 3 years old?

Someone called your pet a fake......get over yourselves.

 

[Bunyip]

Oh good grief! What are you two, 3 years old?

Someone called your pet a fake......get over yourselves.

I honestly don't see what you imagine your behaviour here achieves - other than demonising believers.
I'd hate to have you arguing my side of a debate.

 

[McBell]

I honestly don't see what you imagine your behaviour here achieves - other than demonising believers.

I have wondered for quite some time now if she was really an atheist hell bent on turning people off from religion.

 

[Shad]

Please Shad keep in mind the original Bible manuscripts were Not written in English but Hebrew and Greek.
In the Greek language at Luke 2:1,2 the words used in Greek is NOT tax or taxes but rather registered and registration.
KJV Bibles that translated some words into English that we now know by examining the Hebrew and Greek have a refined meaning.
So, a registration or registration census does Not necessarily mean property wealth.

You do not think academic biblical scholars know this?

Registration is part of the census as it registers the person with their property in order to asses the communities tax burden and manpower. That is the purpose of the census in Roman times since around 161 BCE. You would know this if you read my citation but you did not. Again it is nonsensical to have people travel away from their place of residence to register. Further more you are wrong as the Greek word states it was for tax purpose.

Ab Urbe Condita Libri 1.42 Titus Livius
Greek Lexicon :: G583 (KJV)

 

[Bunyip]

I have wondered for quite some time now if she was really an atheist hell bent on turning people off from religion.

That would make an awful lot more sense sadly.

 

[JayJayDee]

If your pet subject is such a sure thing...an established scientific fact....then why all the whining when someone exposes it as a fraud? It should be water off a duck's back. Nothing I say should have ruffled your feathers...but the fact that it did speaks volumes about your confidence in it.
The very fact that you accuse me of lying is a bit pathetic IMV. Let the evidence speak for itself....what is it saying? Whatever the scientists want it to say.

None of you have substantiated your theory with any real proof. There were no eyewitnesses and all you have is circumstantial evidence and the interpretation of that evidence by your biased science gurus.
That interpretation "might be" or "could be" dead wrong! (Pardon the pun)

 

[Bunyip]

If your pet subject is such a sure thing...an established scientific fact....then why all the whining when someone exposes it as a fraud?

Well firstly because even the majority of Christians accept that evolution is a fact, and secondly your entire 'exposure' consisted of repeating the same transparent lies and deliberate obfuscations ad naseum. Your attack on evolution relies on childish emoticons, hilarious misrepresentations and pointless denial.

It should be water off a duck's back. Nothing I say should have ruffled your feathers...but the fact that it did speaks volumes about your confidence in it.
The very fact that you accuse me of lying is a bit pathetic IMV. Let the evidence speak for itself....what is it saying? Whatever the scientists want it to say.

None of you have substantiated your theory with any real proof. There were no eyewitnesses and all you have is circumstantial evidence and the interpretation of that evidence by your biased science gurus.
That interpretation "might be" or "could be" dead wrong! (Pardon the pun)

I think we are all just wondering what you think you are achieving.

 

[JayJayDee]

Well firstly because even the majority of Christians accept that evolution is a fact,

No true Christian sells out to the world's view. Defectors do that. The truth is, the "majority of Christians" will not be found worthy of that title in the eyes of the one they claim as their "Lord". (Matt 7:21-23)
Satan is the god of this world, capable of "blinding the minds" of those who do not want to believe. (2 Cor 4:3, 4) He has been very successful.

and secondly your entire 'exposure' consisted of repeating the same transparent lies and deliberate obfuscations ad naseum.

Funny, that is what I call the posts supporting organic evolution. You also repeat the same "you're a liar and you're dishonest" nonsense when you can't think of anything to substantiate your beloved theory.

Admit it.....you have a belief system just like I do....you cannot prove that organic evolution ever took place and I cannot produce the Creator to prove that he exists. One day soon, he will introduce himself and we will all know for sure which belief system is correct....won't we?

 

[Bunyip]

No true Christian sells out to the world's view. Defectors do that. The truth is, the "majority of Christians" will not be found worthy of that title in the eyes of the one they claim as their "Lord". (Matt 7:21-23)
Satan is the god of this world, capable of "blinding the minds" of those who do not want to believe. (2 Cor 4:3, 4) He has been very successful.



Funny, that is what I call the posts supporting organic evolution. You also repeat the same "you're a liar and you're dishonest" nonsense when you can't think of anything to substantiate your beloved theory.

Admit it.....you have a belief system just like I do....you cannot prove that organic evolution ever took place and I cannot produce the Creator to prove that he exists. One day soon, he will introduce himself and we will all know for sure which belief system is correct....won't we?

Admit what? You are just proselytizing - that last post proves it. That is a breach of forum rules. You have nothing.

 

[Bunyip]

JayJayDee
Seriously dude, if you think emoticons and gibberish can overthrow 200 years of science, you need to think harder. Denial and ignorance gets you knowhere.

 

[gnostic]

Origen quoted Eusebius saying Matthew at first was written for those from Judaism, composed in the Hebrew language.

Except that the gospel of Matthew wasn't written in Hebrew. It never was.

a) The original gospel of Matthew was written anonymously, and it was only attributed to Matthew in the 2nd century CE. All 4 gospels were written anonymously. We only have church traditions that say they were written by these 4 evangelists.

b) If Matthew (or whoever wrote that gospel) had written in Hebrew, as you have claimed, then why do whenever the author quoted from OT texts, like Isaiah or Jeremiah, quote from the Greek Septuagint, and not from the texts in Hebrew?

I don't know much of church history, but how could Origen quoted something from Eusebius, if Eusebius flourished after Origen's time? Didn't Origen die before Eusebius was born?

 

[JayJayDee]

Admit what?

That you have a belief...just like I do.....a belief that you cannot prove conclusively.
200 years of men trying to understand creation can be called science, but they have never disproved the existence of a Creator. He is the inventor of all science. Men have only begun to scratch the surface of scientific knowledge, yet the first thing they do is try to eliminate belief in the one who made them. Biting the hand that feeds you is not a smart move even by an animal.

You are just proselytizing - that last post proves it. That is a breach of forum rules.

Proselytizing who? I was addressing you. Are you thinking of becoming a JW?

You have nothing.

Neither do you.

BYW, I'm not a dude.

 

[JM2C]

You have misunderstood my post, jm2c.

Job stated behemoth eat grass, therefore a herbivore.

I was talking of tyrannosaurus being meat-eaters, not Job's stupid behemoth; there is no confusion there. Perhaps you are the one who is confused.

Tyrannosaurus rex (T-rex) are just one species out of many different tyrannosaurus. The tyrannosaurus is a genus (which belonged to family of Tyrannosauridae), T-rex (Tyrannosaurus rex) on the other hand is a "species". There are other species of tyrannosaurus, but T-rex is the best known species, and the largest species in its genus. All tyrannosaurs (especially t-rex) are meat-eaters.


The tyrannosaurus are just one genus, and they belonged to group of dinosaurs, belonging to suborder of dinosaurs called Theropoda. Theropods are all dinosaurs that walked on two legs (bipedal), not four, and varied in size.


Another genus of the Theropoda (suborder) and Dromaeosuridae (family) were the Velociraptor, which has 2 different species - V. mongoliensis and V. osmolskae - both of them found in the same region Mongolia. Both species are carnivorous dinosaurs.


There are few genus and species of the Theropoda that are not meat eaters, but most are.


Then there are many dinosaurs that walked on four legs (quadrupedal), and more often than not either herbivores or insectivores. There are many types (family, genus, species) that are quadrupedal dinosaurs, but the largest groups belonging to the sauropod dinosaurs of Sauropodomorpha suborder. The sauropod dinosaurs are noted for their long necks and tails, like Brachiosaurus, Diplodocus, Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus.


Both Theropoda and Sauropodomorpha belonged to the order Saurischia.


A second order of dinosaurs are the Ornithischia, and all of these ornithischian dinosaurs are quadrupedal and being herbivorous in diet. The well known Stegosaurus and the three-horned Triceratops belonged to this order.


My point is that Sauropod and ornithischian dinosaurs are herbivore dinosaurs, but the theropod dinosaurs (like the t-rex or much smaller Velociraptors) are largely carnivore dinosaurs (though, there are few other Theropoda families that are herbivores or insectivores).


You have assumption that the T-Rex are herbivore dinosaurs, but it is actually quite the opposite with this species of dinosaurs.


No, jm2c, you are the one who is confused. And like I said before, all dinosaurs have been extinct since the end of the Cretaceous period, about 65 million years ago. Only in movies they are alive today, like Jurassic Park or King Kong. There weren't any dinosaurs around the times of mythological Adam or Noah, or at any time humans have been around, especially the Homo sapiens (200,000 years).

I’m arguing from the bible’s pov and not from yours. You have or you need to understand that. If you want to argue about Job 40:15 you have to follow what its saying and should avoid any other translations that will only suit your bias interpretation.

For example it says: JOB 40:15 “Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you; He eats grass like an ox.

Where can I reference this from the bible?

GE 1:25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
GE 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
GE 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

On the 6th day God created them both animals and man.

“He eats grass like an ox” Where can I reference this from the bible?

GE 1:30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so.

This is where it all started based on the bible, but you argued differently. You kept on insisting the T-rex are meat eaters. Let’s say they were meat eaters; did you know how and where they started? No you can’t because you don’t know. You can give me all the names of the dinosaurs but it will not matter because you don’t have any idea how they started, but I do, and this is my argument based on the bible.

Can I argue that Agamemnon takes Briseis as his prize, and Achilles takes Chryseis? NO! I cannot for same simple reason that I don’t have any basis for this base on the book, The Iliad.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT HERE? NO! YOU DON’T, BECAUSE YOUR MIND IS FIXED ALREADY ON THE SAME PARADIGM AS THE EVOLUTIONISTS.

Remember I asked you this: “Let me ask you something if you don’t mind. What are your main tenets? It’s really hard to argue with someone who is just going for a ride based on consensus.”

I really don't have tenets - I am agnostic.

and then I said: “No principles to follow?”

Evolution was never about abiogenesis or the origin of 1st life.

Was never, but it is

Even about abiogenesis, it is about something coming out of nothing. It is hypotheize that living matter was made out of non-living matters (inorganic matter), under the right conditions.

This is what I was saying; you are just going along for a ride based on consensus and use this same platform or the same paradigm as the evolutionist without even knowing or understanding why you are following them because YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY PRINCIPLES TO FOLLOW AT ALL on which you ignorantly admitted

I really don't have tenets - I am agnostic.

YOU SEE WHAT HAPPENED WHEN YOU CURSED GOD. YOU ARE AS CONFUSED AS YOUR WORDS.

 

[JM2C]

Yes. So what?
Revoltingest explained it further.

I was not arguing on whether its right or wrong. What he said is

No, he's spot on.

When I asked you if you understand this

That's not necessarily true. Entropy can also be view as a reduction of available potential energy to do work. A rock sitting on a cliff has more gravitational potential energy than the same rock would have if it was sitting in the valley below. However, both situations are equally complex (since they have the same number and kinds of parts).

on which I explained to you.

“Potential energy due to its height, “sitting on a cliff”, and as it drops it gains speed and kinetic energy while the potential energy is decreasing or losing. Energy used energy lost. Entropy! 2nd LoT. As the rock drops, gaining kinetic energy, but losing potential energy entropy is increasing and therefore creates disorder and chaos or death to this energy.”

On which you misunderstood by this post

One rock falling off of a cliff won't create disorder, chaos or death (unless it triggers a rock slide or falls on someone's head). Yes, we all know that entropy is increasing the Universe. What is your point?

then I said: We are not talking about the literal people getting hit in the head by falling rocks. We are talking about energy, gravitational potential energy on how it can create actual energy.

And that was reason why I asked you: Or you don’t know what you’re saying here and

No, he's spot on.

 

[gnostic]

Funny, that is what I call the posts supporting organic evolution. You also repeat the same "you're a liar and you're dishonest" nonsense when you can't think of anything to substantiate your beloved theory.

Admit it.....you have a belief system just like I do....you cannot prove that organic evolution ever took place and I cannot produce the Creator to prove that he exists. One day soon, he will introduce himself and we will all know for sure which belief system is correct....won't we?

You do believe in genetics and inheritance, don't you?

It require no God, to believe that a child will inherit some genes and physical traits of both parents, though some traits of one parent may be dominant than the other parent's.

Well, in the most basic sense, evolution is the same way, except they look at genetics on a lot more larger scale. Biologists don't just look at just the parents and their immediate descendants, meaning offspring. They look at population(s), and over many generations.

The changes don't have to be huge. And it may not be just inherent aspects of parents that cause genetic change.

External or environmental factors may be the causes for genetic changes.

If a bunch of animals moved from island that has plenty of food, to another island that are harder to get food, those animals have to adapted to changing condition, or they will eventually die out, so they will females will only mate with males that have adapted better in the new island. Their offspring may be suited then their parents, and each successive generations of descendents will be better genetically and physically than the original ancestors that arrive in island B.

Charles Darwin have seen and recorded such case on the Galápagos Islands.

On one island, the food (vegetation)was abundance, and easy to reach for the tortoises on that island. They are smaller in size, with short necks and short legs.

On a nearby island, the climate was different, and the terrain were different, so the plants that grow there, were different and not as easy to reach as the other island, being higher off the ground. On this island, the tortoises need to find mates that had longer necks and legs, as well as different shape to their shells (known as saddleback shell). The shell allowed for neck to be craned upright and stretch their necks that were possible with the other tortoises of the other island, as well as being suited stretch their legs further than the other tortoises. All the smaller tortoises didn't survive on this island, because they weren't suited for this different environment.

The tortoises came from the same stock (have common ancestry), but the larger tortoises have changed over time, so they were fit to survive on the island that were different.

Many biologists have gone to Galápagos Islands, and have seen first hand of not only different tortoises, but different birds on different islands.

Natural Selection do happen, and the animals on Galápagos Islands, are evidences to evolution.

 

[JM2C]

I never said traveling a long distance was impossible, strawman.

You’re just implying that there was an “issue that it is unrealistic to have people travel to their places of birth for a census” which really contradicts from this

Roman census were done based on where one lived not where one was born and certainly didn't involve travel by citizens. It was the officials of the state that traveled.

”Roman census were done based on where one lived” or “There is also the issue that it is unrealistic to have people travel to their places of birth for a census.” Which ONE it is?

It’s either traveling became the unfounded “issue” based on your unrealistic understanding of that era because of the means of transportation we have today compared to the era, or was it really “the officials of the state that traveled”? You can’t tell the difference, can you? You know why? Because you don’t know!

 

[JM2C]

Did your forget that in the Jewish temple records that ' son's in law ' were listed as ' sons' ?
Mary's father was Heli, and Joseph would have been considered as son although son-in-law.
Matthew traces through Jesus' paternal line, whereas Luke traces through Jesus' maternal line.
Any comments about Ezra's Jewish ancestral list between chapters 1 to 9 of 1st Chronicles ?

You are good man