Conquer Club

Goran, you gain no merit by your comment, it adds nothing and means nothing. Try refuting what Dr. Meyer has to say regarding the improbability of evolution. If you truly seek truth, then watch this lecture and then comment.

universalchiro wrote:Goran, you gain no merit by your comment, it adds nothing and means nothing. Try refuting what Dr. Meyer has to say regarding the improbability of evolution. If you truly seek truth, then watch this lecture and then comment.

Try refuting what Star Trek has to say regarding the improbability of evolution. If you seek truth, then watch this episode and then comment. (This is a better spent hour methinks)




--Andy

universalchiro wrote:Goran, you gain no merit by your comment, it adds nothing and means nothing.

Uncovering your true intentions and methods is quite solid achievement

universalchiro wrote:Try refuting what Dr. Meyer has to say regarding the improbability of evolution. If you truly seek truth, then watch this lecture and then comment.

I watched it, and I have one thing to point out(its taken from the comments on the video):

Comment by Cary Francis with which I totaly agree wrote:What an idiot. Please read a book on DNA and you may relise that it does not make perfect copies of itself. Not too well thought out.

If you dont agree with my post, put a vote so we can all see who is correct and who is wrong. If you are afraid from voting I recommend that you change you avatar picture with CHICKEN so you will stop insulting the lions

Your response reveals a couple things;
A) You still believe being in the majority means you are correct. That is a false equivalency, eg Galileo.
B) You didn't listen to the lecture, because your lazy copy & paste of what someone wrote inaccurately depicts the content of the lecture and Dr. Meyer still stands with irrefutable evidence against evolution that you didn't address because you don't know about them because you didn't bother to listen to truth.
C) childish personal attacks are for those who have mentally lost or cannot mentally outwit their opponent, either way it bodes poorly for you

universalchiro wrote: C) childish personal attacks are for those who have mentally lost or cannot mentally outwit their opponent, either way it bodes poorly for you

Subject: Great Debate Evolutionist Vs Creationist

universalchiro] wrote:wow! Player you believe in Jesus? Totally shocked, you are so often rude and seemingly pissed off that I am shocked to read that. Well okay, I'll accept that. Maybe you should work on removing rude descriptive words from your arsenal of writing, so your beliefs match up with your words.

--Andy

universalchiro wrote:A) You still believe being in the majority means you are correct. That is a false equivalency

I dont believe that majority is correct... it only means that you are not correct, after all the voting will be for your believes.
See there is huge difference. If you are wrong it doesn't automatically mean that I'm correct.

universalchiro wrote:B) You didn't listen to the lecture, because your lazy copy & paste of what someone wrote inaccurately depicts the content of the lecture and Dr. Meyer still stands with irrefutable evidence against evolution that you didn't address because you don't know about them because you didn't bother to listen to truth.

There is a limit of lies I can listen... Figuratively saying during that time I was listening there was not a single sentence without lie.

universalchiro wrote:C) childish personal attacks are for those who have mentally lost or cannot mentally outwit their opponent, either way it bodes poorly for you

If you dont like to be compared to Nazis dont use their methods. Very simple, I'm not the problem, you are

With the thought of Billions of years of strata
and what it tells us, have you seen this?

oVo wrote:With the thought of Billions of years of strata
and what it tells us, have you seen this?

Yes oVo, you and I both observe the strata. However, we differ on the interpretation of the observable evidence. Evolutionary geologist hypotheses that slow sediment deposits over 100s of millions of years, as we see the rate of deposit today is as it has always been.
I am a skeptic of that hypothesis for a couple of reasons:
1. The segregation of the layers is not how soil is deposited. There will not be a million years of sand then a million years of clay deposited, then a million years of limestone deposited, etc, to form smooth uniform layers, but the layers are homogeneously layered, which is incongruous to uniformitarian theory.
2. The layers are smooth without commingling. I am a skeptic that for each 100,00 to 1 million years for each layer, there was no rain to cause erosion marks and intermingling of the sediment types. We observe today that the hydrological cycle causes erosion marks, but viewing the layers there are none. So no erosion no rain for 100s of millions of years, you bet I'm skeptical.
3. It is illogical to have a layer of sediment with no vegetation and no biomass, indicating there were no grass no plant no tree no algae no creature deposited in the soil layer for a million year period. Yet soil above and below have vegetation and biomass. I'm a skeptic that the layers were deposited naturally for 100s of millions of years.

What is testable, is that all thing including soil types, vegetation and biomass when mixed together will 100% of the time settle according to densities and form layers. Its a law.
A superior hypothesis is a global flood with high turbidity from asteroids, volcanoes, fountains bursting out of the crust forced out by fast (1-2mph) tectonic plates, and the sediment, vegetation and biomass settled by density in layers.

universalchiro wrote:What is testable, is that all thing including soil types, vegetation and biomass when mixed together will 100% of the time settle according to densities and form layers. Its a law.

I'm guessing that you haven't paused to watch the NOVA link about Australia, since it discusses and presents examples of 500 billion years of "formed layers" with the existing evidence of soil types, vegetation, biomass and living things found in fossils, sediment and geological formations.

oVo wrote:

universalchiro wrote:What is testable, is that all thing including soil types, vegetation and biomass when mixed together will 100% of the time settle according to densities and form layers. Its a law.

I'm guessing that you haven't paused to watch the NOVA link about Australia, since it discusses and presents examples of 500 billion years of "formed layers" with the existing evidence of soil types, vegetation, biomass and living things found in fossils, sediment and geological formations.

Uniformatarian Its a hypothesis. Not law, not fact. There is no label on the soil that evolutionary geologist are reading from. And Nova (a favorite of mine) is staffed and sourced w/ evolutionist. Its like a Christian siting a church as source.
I'm a skeptic of sediment being segregated/homogeneous via natural deposit methods. For there won't be 1million years of just one sediment type & then a different soil the next million years, etc.

There is no evolutionist allowed to even say my hypothesis is plausible, because the theory of evolution requires billions of years, so take away billions of years by the Destructive chaotic catastrophic global flood of Genesis and evolution doesn't have enough time to evolve life.

universalchiro wrote:

oVo wrote:

universalchiro wrote:What is testable, is that all thing including soil types, vegetation and biomass when mixed together will 100% of the time settle according to densities and form layers. Its a law.

Not exactly.
See, density changes with temperature and pressure. Also vibrations, currents shift they way things settle in fluid. And, shape changes a lot -- a feather will drop through air more slowly than a pebble of the same weight. This does not disprove Newton's law.. its just that there are other factors. That is true in air and in water-- in basically any substance.

universalchiro wrote: Uniformatarian Its a hypothesis. Not law, not fact.

Its rather ironic that you would make that argument. Its true, just ironic that you would voice it.

See, you want to say that its possible that natural laws and processes differed in the past. OK, basically any scientist will agree that this impossible. HOWEVER, you do this while also claiming that a whole bunch of natural laws are completely unchangeable! Note.. a lot of what you call a natural law either isn't truly a law or is a law, but you apply it incorrectly -- like saying that settling rates are constant. That is basically only true in a laboratory with set parameters.

universalchiro wrote:There is no label on the soil that evolutionary geologist are reading from.

In a way, there is. Volcanic eruptions leave markers of ash, and also correspond to recorded dates. Pollens and particulates also leave distinct markers. Floods, too leave a distinct pattern. (a pattern that does not match what you say happened in Noah's flood -- note, I am not saying there was no flood, just that your ideas about it are wrong)

universalchiro wrote:And Nova (a favorite of mine) is staffed and sourced w/ evolutionist. Its like a Christian siting a church as source.

More like a Christian citing the Bible. Churches can be wrong. The Bible IS The Bible.
Scientists of ALL types, if they are legitimate, site observation, testing AND they put that information and methodology out to be challenged by other scientists. That, ironically enough, is why your ilk can find many errors -- part of science IS to test and retest proposed findings and published findings. Science is never done, it always continues with new information.

universalchiro wrote:I'm a skeptic of sediment being segregated/homogeneous via natural deposit methods. For there won't be 1million years of just one sediment type & then a different soil the next million years, etc.

Ah, good.. you admit that this pattern is not what we see!

universalchiro wrote:There is no evolutionist allowed to even say my hypothesis is plausible, because the theory of evolution requires billions of years, so take away billions of years by the Destructive chaotic catastrophic global flood of Genesis and evolution doesn't have enough time to evolve life.

[/quote][/quote] No. No credible scientist (proponent of evolution or not) will say your hypothesis is plausible because it just does not match any data we have. In fact, your theory has been disproven many times.

Only very, very poor scientists start with their idea and then dismiss any ideas that don't adhere. The theory of evolution arose from data, the data came first, then the theory. The data was not found to justify the theory of evolution.

Also worth remembering that once upon a time church doctrine and science were essentially the same thing. The ideas the church stated were true were accepted as the laws of the universe. All of the things you are claiming UC, in large part were once the closest approximation to what today we call our scientifically accepted theories. Flaws were found in these theories and better explanations were sought to explain reality. The result of that is the scientific theories which we have today. Now you can reject them all you like and go back to whatever our best guesses were 500 or 1000 years ago, before a lot of really intelligent (and very often devoutly religious) people spent their lives working out what is actually true, but you're not proposing anything new. You're proposing ideas that have already been proven false by thousands or millions of carefully vetted, repeated and verified experimental methods. Whether you want to believe all the things that all those very many very intelligent, devout and conscientious people have already proved to be false or not makes not one bit of difference to the truth of reality.

crispybits wrote:Also worth remembering that once upon a time church doctrine and science were essentially the same thing. The ideas the church stated were true were accepted as the laws of the universe. All of the things you are claiming UC, in large part were once the closest approximation to what today we call our scientifically accepted theories. Flaws were found in these theories and better explanations were sought to explain reality. The result of that is the scientific theories which we have today. Now you can reject them all you like and go back to whatever our best guesses were 500 or 1000 years ago, before a lot of really intelligent (and very often devoutly religious) people spent their lives working out what is actually true, but you're not proposing anything new. You're proposing ideas that have already been proven false by thousands or millions of carefully vetted, repeated and verified experimental methods. Whether you want to believe all the things that all those very many very intelligent, devout and conscientious people have already proved to be false or not makes not one bit of difference to the truth of reality.

IN most cases, he is not even doing that. He is picking out ideas that are not really from anywhere else (one reason he has so few sources), just his own misguided ideas.

Earlier on, in a previous thread, he did come up with some ideas that permeate young earth sites, In this one, he seems to have gone beyond those into something... else.

@player, you wrote same old style, lots of words without content and no science or logic with it. Just quantity not quality. Again.
But cat has your tongue when it comes to how do you know Jesus was really a real person let alone that he died on cross let alone rose from grave. So how do you know? Ironic that you'll fight tooth and nail for evolution but not raise a finger with Bible questions... hhhmmm ironic in deed.

universalchiro wrote:@player, you wrote same old style, lots of words without content and no science or logic with it. Just quantity not quality. Again..

You disgrace God and Christ. Reread and see which of us is really "without content or logic", which of us truly is voicing lies.

Somehow, I truly doubt you really are a faithful Christian. You seem more like someone just playing games right now.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

universalchiro wrote:@player, you wrote same old style, lots of words without content and no science or logic with it. Just quantity not quality. Again..

You disgrace God and Christ. Reread and see which of us is really "without content or logic", which of us truly is voicing lies.

Somehow, I truly doubt you really are a faithful Christian. You seem more like someone just playing games right now.

No creationists are faithful Christians. They are deliberately doing Satan's work.

To all theistic evolutionist: support evolution through scripture, give me one verse.
There are ample verses for young earth creationist and verses explicitly and implicitly saying the essence of zero evolution and the hypothesis is doctrine of demons. So state your case through scripture and I'll state mine and we'll see who speaks for God and who does not.

universalchiro wrote:To all theistic evolutionist: support evolution through scripture, give me one verse.
There are ample verses for young earth creationist and verses explicitly and implicitly saying the essence of zero evolution and the hypothesis is doctrine of demons. So state your case through scripture and I'll state mine and we'll see who speaks for God and who does not.

To all theistic people who do not simply kill gay people, as commanded in Leviticus: support letting gay people live through scripture, give me one verse.

Metsfanmax wrote:

universalchiro wrote:To all theistic evolutionist: support evolution through scripture, give me one verse.
There are ample verses for young earth creationist and verses explicitly and implicitly saying the essence of zero evolution and the hypothesis is doctrine of demons. So state your case through scripture and I'll state mine and we'll see who speaks for God and who does not.

To all theistic people who do not simply kill gay people, as commanded in Leviticus: support letting gay people live through scripture, give me one verse.

"Let him without sin cast the first stone".
NEXT!

universalchiro wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

universalchiro wrote:To all theistic evolutionist: support evolution through scripture, give me one verse.
There are ample verses for young earth creationist and verses explicitly and implicitly saying the essence of zero evolution and the hypothesis is doctrine of demons. So state your case through scripture and I'll state mine and we'll see who speaks for God and who does not.

To all theistic people who do not simply kill gay people, as commanded in Leviticus: support letting gay people live through scripture, give me one verse.

"Let him without sin cast the first stone".
NEXT!

So, if it is possible for a later writing in the Bible to overrule an earlier one, why do you have faith in anything in Genesis?

universalchiro wrote:To all theistic evolutionist: support evolution through scripture, give me one verse.

The entire book of Genesis. Your error is that you mimic the text without understanding what was meant when it was put down.
These are words from God, but put through the minds and hands of people without scientific knowledge. Asking a people to whom 40 represented a very large number to concieve of billions of years of time is ridiculous. Furthermore, the point of Genesis was not to provide a scientifically exact outline of Earth's creation, it was to establish the general process and that God did it.

Claiming that Genesis refers to a 24 hour day, which humans determine based on the rotation of the Earth, when there was not yet any sun or Earth is just poppycock. It might be plausible if there evidence were not so utterly contrary, but it is. The day was God's day... and no human knows the exact time of God's day.

Further, the progression of appearance of animals matches what evolutionary biologists say. There Is no mention of prior species because they were outside the understanding of the ancient people, much like a time frame of 4 billion years was outside of it.

universalchiro wrote:There are ample verses for young earth creationist and verses explicitly and implicitly saying the essence of zero evolution

No, only if you twist hte words to insist they must say something other than they say.

If I say I see "millions of stars", you can claim you count one million and one and "therefore I lie" OR you can accept that in today's language, "a million" is used as a general term. Pretending that words have only one meaning is a lie. God does not lie. Christ does not support lies.
FURTHER, note how little Christ talked about the creation, and when he did it was to support what I have said.. if you go back to one of the original translated, truly translated Bibles and not one of the modern "iterations" that are supposed to make "the words clearer" without really worrying heavily about the integrity.

universalchiro wrote: and the hypothesis is doctrine of demons.

Ah, well, now show where the Bible says this. See, what I see is passages talking about how even the devil can quote scripture.. but the devil refuses to understand.

universalchiro wrote: So state your case through scripture and I'll state mine and we'll see who speaks for God and who does not.

Yes, let's do...


Essentially, the only way for young earth creationism to be correct is if God made the world to appear as if it were old. There are people who believe that and it is not something that can be disproven scientifically. You are not voicing that view.

Another possibility is that ALL of science.. the chemistry, physics, biology, geology, etc are all fused with very gross errors. The chance that this is true is miniscule. And, ironically enough.. if you feel that al of that is wrong, then you also lose any ground for claims that these laws you like to cite are correct. See, it was those selfsame scientists who established, explained those laws.

A third possibility is more possible, that is that most of science is correct, but there are many errors. On the one hand, any scientist will fully admit there are errors in science. NO ONE with science sense questions that! However, there is a GIANT leap from the claim that "science got some stuff wrong" (undoubtedly true) and saying "there are errors enough to allow for the young earth theories to be correct." The second statement is highly, highly unlikely to be true. The chance is so slim most sensible people would simply say "no chance"

You cannot have it both ways. Either you accept science or you do not. If you do not, stop pretending to use scientific words and explanations and just say you reject everything. Then there is no argument, we will all know you for what you are.

Metsfanmax wrote:

universalchiro wrote:To all theistic evolutionist: support evolution through scripture, give me one verse.
There are ample verses for young earth creationist and verses explicitly and implicitly saying the essence of zero evolution and the hypothesis is doctrine of demons. So state your case through scripture and I'll state mine and we'll see who speaks for God and who does not.

To all theistic people who do not simply kill gay people, as commanded in Leviticus: support letting gay people live through scripture, give me one verse.

Thou shalt not kill.


Does this mean kill anything? Such as chickens?

notyou2 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

universalchiro wrote:To all theistic evolutionist: support evolution through scripture, give me one verse.
There are ample verses for young earth creationist and verses explicitly and implicitly saying the essence of zero evolution and the hypothesis is doctrine of demons. So state your case through scripture and I'll state mine and we'll see who speaks for God and who does not.

To all theistic people who do not simply kill gay people, as commanded in Leviticus: support letting gay people live through scripture, give me one verse.

Thou shalt not kill.


Does this mean kill anything? Such as chickens?

A better translation is "thou shalt not murder", but the point is disputed. Most Jews tend to go with "murder". Most Christian tend to go with "kill", though all but a few, such as the Mennonites and Hutterites, make various exceptions.

It is also sometimes translated as "thou shalt not kill thy brother".

Metsfanmax wrote:

universalchiro wrote:To all theistic evolutionist: support evolution through scripture, give me one verse.
There are ample verses for young earth creationist and verses explicitly and implicitly saying the essence of zero evolution and the hypothesis is doctrine of demons. So state your case through scripture and I'll state mine and we'll see who speaks for God and who does not.

To all theistic people who do not simply kill gay people, as commanded in Leviticus: support letting gay people live through scripture, give me one verse.

The New Testament does supercede, or rather show fulfillment, of the Old Testament.

I don't think you want a deep theological discussion, however. The answer pertinent to Genesis is that it was not refuted or changed in the New Testament or anywhere.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

universalchiro wrote:To all theistic evolutionist: support evolution through scripture, give me one verse.
There are ample verses for young earth creationist and verses explicitly and implicitly saying the essence of zero evolution and the hypothesis is doctrine of demons. So state your case through scripture and I'll state mine and we'll see who speaks for God and who does not.

To all theistic people who do not simply kill gay people, as commanded in Leviticus: support letting gay people live through scripture, give me one verse.

The New Testament does supercede, or rather show fulfillment, of the Old Testament.

I don't think you want a deep theological discussion, however.

I kind of do. I don't think UC is going to change his mind on this issue, so at least I can try to understand what his view on the Bible is. And, in doing so, maybe learn a little more about why people reject evolution.