Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.

[exchemist]

And where is this clearly stated?

All Christians I have talked to think they are going to heaven, and hell only applies to non-believers of the Jesus story. So why deny your fellow Christians heaven?

Do you think you are one of the saved? If so, why?

Reading this, my True Scotsman detector has gone off :

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I have told you that an unbeliever cannot understand the Bible.
It is a clear as crystal.

So I was a believer for 17 years and now I am not. Did I lose my understanding when I stopped believing or did I keep my understanding?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

And where is this clearly stated?

All Christians I have talked to think they are going to heaven, and hell only applies to non-believers of the Jesus story. So why deny your fellow Christians heaven?

Do you think you are one of the saved? If so, why?

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. - Romans 4:5

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. - Matthew 7:21

 

[SavedByTheLord]

And where is this clearly stated?

All Christians I have talked to think they are going to heaven, and hell only applies to non-believers of the Jesus story. So why deny your fellow Christians heaven?

Do you think you are one of the saved? If so, why?

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. - Romans 4:5

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. - Matthew 7:21

 

[blü 2]

However the Bible is quite clear and so there is just one faith.

How do you account for the Jewish faith then? After all, it's their Tanakh, not the Christians'.

How do you account for the distinction between Eastern Orthodoxy in its various forms, and Western Christianity?

Within Western Christianity how do you account for the schism between Catholic and Protestant?

Within Protestant Christianity, how do account for the difference between science-accepting and anti-science insisting (like yourself)?

 

[F1fan]

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. - Romans 4:5

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. - Matthew 7:21

How is this clear as a response to what I asked?

I asked why you believe many of your fellow Christians won't make it to heaven. And I asked why you think you are going. You offer no explanation.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

How is this clear as a response to what I asked?

I asked why you believe many of your fellow Christians won't make it to heaven. And I asked why you think you are going. You offer no explanation.

The 2 verses answer both questions.
The first shows why many who call themselves Christians won’t make it to heaven.
It also shows why I am already saved and will go to heaven at death or at rapture.
The second verse shows that most who call themselves Christians won’t make it to heaven.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which kind of evolution.

When it comes to the biological explanation for the diversity of life, there is only one kind of evolution.

Microevolution which is really just variation within created kinds?
That is about it.
Not macroevolution which is on kind evolving into another kind.
That has never happened nor could.

Strawman.

"one kind to another" does not happen in biological evolution.

Learn the theory you are so hellbend on arguing against before trying to argue against it.

Also, there is no difference in the process of micro vs macro evolution.

Consider the process of walking.
It matters not if you travel a micro distance or a macro distance.
Wheter you walk 10 meters or 10 kilometers. Walking is walking.

But you don't care, right?
I predict a doubling down on your strawman instead of you actually correcting your mistake.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Actually,
you need to start with nothing then get that to become all the matter, every and forces of nature
Then you have to get that to become the first living creature
and then prove that became all the living things in the world that have ever lived.

BTW, where are the magnetic monopoles?

Where are the pop 3 stars?
Where are the magnetic monopoles?
Why is there such an abundance of heaven elements in the early universe, especially nickel?
Why is Venus rotating backwards?

None of this drivel has anything to do with us pointing out your mistake of thinking micro-evolution and macro-evolution are different processes.
None of this drivel has anything to do with your strawman of "one kind changing to another kind".

At least try to stay on topic.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

When it comes to the biological explanation for the diversity of life, there is only one kind of evolution.


Strawman.

"one kind to another" does not happen in biological evolution.

Learn the theory you are so hellbend on arguing against before trying to argue against it.

Also, there is no difference in the process of micro vs macro evolution.

Consider the process of walking.
It matters not if you travel a micro distance or a macro distance.
Wheter you walk 10 meters or 10 kilometers. Walking is walking.

But you don't care, right?
I predict a doubling down on your strawman instead of you actually correcting your mistake.

As always evolutionists cannot admit they have nothing.
It is a fallacy to believe that any form of projection, especially linear projection, outside of the measured or observed range is valid.
There are just adaptations within created kinds, aka micro evolution.
No one has ever observed one created kind turning into another created kind. To assume that more changes will do that is projection outside of the measured or observe range.
It is very bad science to do so.
For example, the force needed to pull a spring is proportional to its distance.
F = kx
until breaks.
End proof.

 

[ratiocinator]

As always evolutionists cannot admit they have nothing.

It is a fallacy to believe that any form of projection, especially linear projection, outside of the measured or observed range is valid.

And this means what, exactly?

There are just adaptations within created kinds, aka micro evolution.

Baseless, unargued assertion.

No one has ever observed one created kind turning into another created kind.

There is a good reason for that: creationist dishonesty. They never properly define 'kind' and as soon as the evidence for one sort of organism turning into another becomes too strong for even them to deny, they just say they must have been the same kind all along.

To assume that more changes will do that is projection outside of the measured or observe range.
It is very bad science to do so.
For example, the force needed to pull a spring is proportional to its distance.
F = kx
until breaks.

False analogy. There is no equivalent here of a spring breaking. The mechanisms that drive microevolution don't have limitations. There is no mechanism that stops them at any point.

What creationists would have to do, if they were at all honest (fat chance!), is to properly define 'kind' and explain what the mechanism is that limits the processes of microevolution from ever breaking through that barrier.

End proof.

And yet again you demonstrate that you don't understand what 'proof' means.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

And this means what, exactly?


Baseless, unargued assertion.


There is a good reason for that: creationist dishonesty. They never properly define 'kind' and as soon as the evidence for one sort of organism turning into another becomes too strong for even them to deny, they just say they must have been the same kind all along.


False analogy. There is no equivalent here of a spring breaking. The mechanisms that drive microevolution don't have limitations. There is no mechanism that stops them at any point.

What creationists would have to do, if they were at all honest (fat chance!), is to properly define 'kind' and explain what the mechanism is that limits the processes of microevolution from ever breaking through that barrier.


And yet again you demonstrate that you don't understand what 'proof' means.

Sure there is an analogy to a spring breaking.
People have bred dogs for many years and some a very large.
But what limits them from making even larger dogs?
Because eventually that dog line will become less fit and prone to many problems. That is the spring breaks.
Projection outside of measured of observed ranges is pseudo science.
So macro evolution is falsified .
End proof.

 

[ratiocinator]

People have bred dogs for many years and some a very large.
But what limits them from making even larger dogs?
Because eventually that dog line will become less fit and prone to many problems.

Another analogy pushed way too far. There are two main reason why this is wrong: selective breading can't wait for mutations and breads for "aesthetic" traits not those that are good for survival.

So macro evolution is falsified .
End proof.

It really is comical that you keep on claiming 'proof' when it's obvious that you understand neither the meaning of the word nor its applicability...

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Another analogy pushed way too far. There are two main reason why this is wrong: selective breading can't wait for mutations and breads for "aesthetic" traits not those that are good for survival.

It really is comical that you keep on claiming 'proof' when it's obvious that you understand neither the meaning of the word nor its applicability...

If selective breading won’t work, what will?
There are no super giant dogs because any changes beyond a certain point break the spring.
This is observed in all species.

 

[ratiocinator]

If selective breading won’t work, what will?

Tip: always a good idea to read a post before typing an 'answer'.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Tip: always a good idea to read a post before typing an 'answer'.

so, if selective breading does no work, what will make a very large dog?

There are no super giant dogs because any changes beyond a certain point break the spring.
This is observed in all species.
I have just falsified forever macroevolution.
I have already falsified abiogenesis,
I have already falsified the Big Bang.

How did the moon come into being?

 

[ratiocinator]

so, if selective breading does no work, what will make a very large dog?

There are no super giant dogs because any changes beyond a certain point break the spring.
This is observed in all species.

You keep on demonstrating why it's totally pointless giving you sensible evidence and reasoning. See #1,653.

I have just falsified forever macroevolution.
I have already falsified abiogenesis,
I have already falsified the Big Bang.

No, you have not. Not even close. All you have proved is your own ignorance of science and logic.

 

[blü 2]

It also shows why I am already saved and will go to heaven at death or at rapture.
The second verse shows that most who call themselves Christians won’t make it to heaven.

*Chuckle*

That's your happy vision of bliss, eh? Throwing peanuts over the walls of heaven down to Everyone Else down in Hell?

You're a real charmer!

Still, dream it while you can ...

 

[SavedByTheLord]

*Chuckle*

That's your happy vision of bliss, eh? Throwing peanuts over the walls of heaven down to Everyone Else down in Hell?

You're a real charmer!

Still, dream it while you can ...

And yet it is all true and certain.

 

[F1fan]

The 2 verses answer both questions.
The first shows why many who call themselves Christians won’t make it to heaven.

And why is that?

It also shows why I am already saved and will go to heaven at death or at rapture.

And why is that? Explain why you think this is the case.

The second verse shows that most who call themselves Christians won’t make it to heaven.

It doesn't say why. Did you really think these two verses were going to spell out why a human being gets to heaven or ends up in hell? Even Christians don't understand it, as we see with their broad disagreements, and variety of interpretations. What makes you think you're different?

I asked for answers and all you have is vague bits from the New Testament that lack clarity. It's for reasons like this that I'm not a believer, nor a Christian. A person lik me requires valid answers that are clear and complete, not vague statments that forces me to make guesses. It looks to me like you, like your fellow Christians, have to guess. This explains the lack of consistency.

Sure there is an analogy to a spring breaking.
People have bred dogs for many years and some a very large.

They have been bred larger by breeding dogs that are larger than the rest. The same with smaller dogs.

But what limits them from making even larger dogs?

The genes. Breeding dogs to have certain traits makes use of existing genes. There is no genetic information added by the breeder. Mutations occur and can be a liability or beneficial over time. That is how evolution works. Humans force selection of traits for a reason, but in nature the environment forces the selection. Evolution in naure is the path of least resistance where the advantaged traits are selected IF others are disadvantaged. Of course you don't understand any of this.

Because eventually that dog line will become less fit and prone to many problems. That is the spring breaks.

Only because dogs are in an envvironment that doesn't require their fitness for survival, as humans take sick dog to vets. If you put many dog breeds out in the wild and they would not survive.

Projection outside of measured of observed ranges is pseudo science.

Creationism is Fraud in the name of God. Get science right.

So macro evolution is falsified .

You don't accept science, which is your liability.