gnostic
The Lost One
I haven't misunderstood Jesus' teachings.
What I do see is that you don't adhere to his teachings. You are not only lack integrity, you have been arrogant to boot.
-
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!
The Big Bang Theory is dead.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
I haven't misunderstood Jesus' teachings.
What I do see is that you don't adhere to his teachings. You are not only lack integrity, you have been arrogant to boot.
You do realize that mere repetition doen't add a jot of credibility to your claim....?
gnostic
The Lost One
And there you go.
You are mixing the 2 very different models into one big mess.
The Big Bang models aren't the same as the Multiverse model, thereby creating another one of your wack-job conspiracy theory.
You speak of science being the same as religion, your original conspiracy, with your absurd 40,000-year-old fantasy of single universal language and ancient science that never existed in this time period. And then poof, one language become many because of your absurd version of fictional Tower of Babel some 4000 years ago.
And if that's not bad enough, you play word games, where you make up your words with your wack-job meanings that no one use, but you.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Wow!! You really know how to find sites written by crazies for crazies. I have never heard of that organization so I poked around it a bit. They are all rouchies there. You are probably too young to know him. Odds are you you were not even born when Lyndon LaRouche ran for President. Eight different times. Once from prison. He was definitely an oddball. You can learn more about him here:
Lyndon LaRouche - Wikipedia
But seriously can't you tell from a website that it was probably not written by someone that even graduated from high school just by how unprofessional that it looks? This is not what one would call a reliable source.
Thanks for posting this. It sounds like a stellar organization. Why would someone look to this as evidence to support a particular interpretation of the Bible?Wow!! You really know how to find sites written by crazies for crazies. I have never heard of that organization so I poked around it a bit. They are all rouchies there. You are probably too young to know him. Odds are you you were not even born when Lyndon LaRouche ran for President. Eight different times. Once from prison. He was definitely an oddball. You can learn more about him here:
Lyndon LaRouche - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
But seriously can't you tell from a website that it was probably not written by someone that even graduated from high school just by how unprofessional that it looks? This is not what one would call a reliable source.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Well it is what it says and I have already proven it true.
Please explain how vision evolved. I want all the details.
I await evidence that anything has been "proven" by the OP.
I'll be pushing up daisies and that evidence will still not have been posted here or anywhere.
I'll be pushing up daisies and that evidence will still not have been posted here or anywhere.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Your blindness causes you to be a biased judge.
Once again, we see the malicious attempts to avoid responsibility and avoid supporting claims. There is only one reason I can think of for this tactic and it is that the claimant cannot support their claims, so they have to do what they can to damage the credibility of others. Is that good Christian witness?
I believe that the claim now is that waiting for evidence for the claims of others is a blindness and bias.
Is this the same as saying, "if you expect evidence or support of claims from the creationist position, you'll go blind first"?
Is this the same as saying, "if you expect evidence or support of claims from the creationist position, you'll go blind first"?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Document how any hand evolved, Give times and descriptions of all proteins and genes involved and of course the actual species involved. Also document how this was possible given sexual reproduction.
Also include all calculations and give the location of where the fossil evidences were found and all dating information with properly documented error ranges.
Evolutionists have made the claim and so you must prove it.
I will want the same for 100s of other irreducibly complex organs and functions. For example fingers and the amount in each species.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry, but you do not get to make any demands until you change your ways.
Demonstrate that you can be honest and acknowledge when your posts have been refuted. Learn what is and what is not evidence. And of course yo need to learn what the scientific method is and how to apply it.
Do that and you can ask any questions that you want.
The evolution of the hand is well-documented. If a person really wanted to know anything about it, the information is available from scientists that specialize in the study of those things. Demanding that non-scientists that don't specialize in the evolution of particular structures produce evidence and demonstrate to a person that hasn't shown any real interest in this documentation and any evidence is a tactic. Essentially, if they don't get what they demand, then they declare the science false and and all they believe is true by default. Throwing in the origin of sexual reproduction is a red herring to boot.
Setting aside the fact that the burden of proof to demonstrate that the hand did not evolve actually exists with the one making demands, the failure to get what is demanded is a tactic to declare their undemonstrated belief is reality by default. It is an old tactic that has never worked, but that doesn't prevent it from being used again and again. As evidence here.
Setting aside the fact that the burden of proof to demonstrate that the hand did not evolve actually exists with the one making demands, the failure to get what is demanded is a tactic to declare their undemonstrated belief is reality by default. It is an old tactic that has never worked, but that doesn't prevent it from being used again and again. As evidence here.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
I see no details, and no science.
Evolution falsifiEd by your lack of answer.
Wow! I have no evidence and no reason to consider that my answering or not answering incoherent posts denying science and declaring victory is a standard of science or used to falsify any theory.
It seems desperate to me. Another attempt to demean a poster due to an inability to address what that poster has posted.
I'm still laughing.
It seems desperate to me. Another attempt to demean a poster due to an inability to address what that poster has posted.
I'm still laughing.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Cop outs make you look childish.
The theory of evolution and billions of years is a lie and indefensible. Obviously you cannot answer what the origin of anything is.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Your inability to see is due to your own lack of education and refusing to learn.
You cannot falsify what you do not understand.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry, it is not a cop out when you refuse to learn. But you do provide light entertainment. And serve as a real world example of the dangers of religious indoctrination.