Conquer Club

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:57 pm**

I'm gonna jump back in on a Frigidus question seeing as we seem to be answering each others from time to time right now...

I'm sure the bible (and torah/koran because they're all 3 rehashing each other) is almost definitely not true because it makes fantastical claims to priveleged knowledge not available to mankind (Genesis chapter 1 for example) without any secondary sources. It's laying down ethical rules that are clearly immoral. It's making claims of scientific fact that are disproven hokum. I can't verify who wrote it, whether it was checked for accuracy by anyone else and if the author knew what he was talking about. There's plenty more do you want me to continue?

Just as an aside, out of curiosity I just googled "who wrote the book of Genesis" and came up with this lovely result at the very top of the list:

http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/01/0 ... f-genesis/

With a little searching through the scriptures you can prove conclusively that Moses wrote Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The Bible never mentions that Moses was the author of Genesis. So who wrote Genesis? Actually Moses was the editor of Genesis. There are 10 different eyewitness accounts in Genesis. Adam actually wrote part of Genesis. 10 different times in the book of Genesis you will find the phrase “these are the generations of.” This is the switching phrase where a new author is now taking over. Apparently God wrote the first chapter. There is no way anyone else would have known those things. But for chapter 2 Adam was there and was an eyewitness to what was happening. Adam wrote chapters 2, 3, and 4.

(I know, I probably should find it sad rather than funny that people actually believe this tripe but there you go...)

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2013 6:04 pm**

centuries of biblical theology

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2013 6:07 pm**

Priest Miracle in Missouri (Video) Guardian Angel Appears at Katie Lentz Car Crash

After the Priest prayed, everything started to work better, including the first responders tools, and the firemen and rescue workers were able to free Katie and get her transported to a hospital.

Once she was free, some of the rescue workers turned to find the Priest to thank him, but he he had disappeared seemingly into thin air - just as he seemed to appear out of nowhere.

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2013 6:08 pm**

mordigan wrote:centuries of biblical theology

Sure, the Bible agrees with the Bible, but that's tautological. If the Bible matched up better with history or science I might at least give it some credit, but as it is there's nothing backing it up but itself.

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2013 6:10 pm**

so if the bible fails to match up with history or science, we should assume that it's the bible that's wrong?

when science disproves old science, do you start to doubt science?

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2013 6:12 pm**

mordigan wrote:so if the bible fails to match up with history or science, we should assume that it's the bible that's wrong?

Yes, because history and science are backed up with physical evidence.

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2013 6:57 pm**

mordigan wrote:when science disproves old science, do you start to doubt science?

Sorry I missed this. No, because the entire point of science is that we discard ideas that are disproven. I will gladly retract my views of gravity, magnetism, evolution, the nature of light, the rotation of the Earth around the Sun, etc. as soon as sufficient evidence to the contrary is presented.

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2013 7:23 pm**

Frigidus wrote:
mordigan wrote:so if the bible fails to match up with history or science, we should assume that it's the bible that's wrong?

Yes, because history and science are backed up with physical evidence.

christianity is backed up with physical evidence in just the same way as history is

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:29 pm**

universalchiro wrote:
tzor wrote:
universalchiro wrote:Can an evolutionist give one observable evidence that is repeatable

Sure, I can give you plenty of them. These observations require only a mere million years of your time

This is exactly my point. Thank you for helping me prove this. Its not observable. Only your faith in evolution is observable. Bht you can't/won't see that.

And yet when the perfectly valid analogy of "change within a single day" was brought up, you completely ignored it.

universalchiro wrote:Your other point was not worth commentjng on, I ignored it.

This right here perfectly illustrates why you're completely dishonest. You're not interested in the truth, nor are you interested in actual science. You're interested in pushing your ideology, regardless of it's validity or not. You are the worst kind of theocrat.

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:31 pm**

Jdsizzleslice wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Jdsizzleslice wrote:
crispybits wrote:But why is it ridiculous BBS - can they PROVE it's not true - if not then by some of their own logic we must believe it is true because that book God created this morning that tells us about how he created it in 6 days (a day to God is about a milli micro nanosecond to us) is obviously the only thing to be trusted and anyone who speaks against it's literal truth once you redefine about half the words in there is a liar nd is going straight to hell!

Can you find anything else that says "This is how the start of it happened" that isn't a theory? The Bible is the only piece of documentation that clearly stated how the universe came into existence. Theories like The Big Bang Theory, and Evolution, are mere theories. The definition of a theory is pretty much a temporary explanation. It's not truth, it just says what some scientists think how the universe came about.

You don't seem to have a very firm grasp on what the idea of "theory" means in scientific circles. For example, the theory of gravity.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:However, the Bible is the only one that sets the facts in stone.

Did I somehow overlook that you were being sarcastic? Surely this is sarcasm, isn't it?

No. No sarcasm at all. Lol gravity isn't a theory... Wow...

Wow, indeed...as I said, you don't seem to have a very firm grasp on what the idea of "theory" means in scientific circles. You should probably take a basic science course if you want to continue this discussion with any honesty.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:All of mankind is flawed. Why is there no smallest measurement of any kind... If all of us were perfect we would have the smallest kind of measurements for all types of dimensions.

I have no idea what this means, and it's particularly confusing now that we can break atoms down into particles like quarks. What are you trying to say?

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:32 pm**

universalchiro wrote:
universalchiro wrote:
Frigidus wrote:While I can't prove that the universe is billions of years old, we know that it is much older than the human species. Radiometric dating alone pushes us exponentially past the couple thousand years of known human history (although I'm sure someone will question its validity by mentioning lava flowing over older rock or something else that has been equally taken into account).

Look, ya'll don't understand what you believe. You are going on faith alone.
A. You weren't there.
B. It's not observable.
C. Radiometric dating/Radioactive Isotopic dating seems well and dandy, but with a closer look, there are some serious flaws with this dating system.

Radioactive dating:
#Pb ions/ #Po ions X Constant Rate of Decay = Age of item being tested.

The problem is with the "Constant Rate of Decay". How do you know the rate of decay has always been constant? I know it seems constant with our short term viewing. But consider this,
Is there evidence in nature that the Rate of Decay can be accelerated? Yes . Petrified wood is suppose to take 500,000 years to form. Yet Mount Saint Helen erupted in 1980 & has produced petrified wood in only 30 years. WOW! a 499,970 year acceleration.
Is there evidence that mankind can accelerate the "Constant" Rate of decay? Yes.
Take a piece of wood + trace clay + -O2 (vacuum) + H2O + heat (150 C) + pressure + time (8 months) = 100% coal in only 8 months.... Coal that is indistinguishable with coal that is suppose to take 20 million years to form via the "Constant Rate of Decay" process.
Chicken farmers sends byproducts to distilleries and within 30 minutes of heating the byproducts, 100% petroleum oil is produced. A process that is suppose to take 50 million years...

So Nature can accelerate petrification from 500,000 years down to 30 years.
Humans can accelerate coalification from 20 million years down to 8 months.
Humans can accelerate the petroleum production from 50 million years down to 30 minutes.

Why do you take this great leap of faith that the "Constant Rate of Decay" has always been constant? Why? Because it's faith based.

Look at the Grand Canyon: If each layer took millions or even thousands of years to form, there would be massive commingling of layers. But that is not what we see. There are distinct layers.

Darwinian Evolution of changing of kinds, is not observable, nor testable. Only thing evolutionist do is see adaptation & say that's proof of evolution. ie the Galapagos Finches that have adapted, They are still finches.... and the Bacteria that has adapted, are still bacteria.

NOTE TO Frigidus:
You don't even know what I'm talking about. Its like you read every other word & comment without knowing what the author is writing.

NOTE TO universalchiro. Frigidus very clearly DOES know what you're talking about. However, it is becoming very clear that either you don't know what you're talking about or you don't care to discuss the issue honestly.

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:34 pm**

mordigan wrote:why would anyone write the bible if it wasn't real? seems like a bit of an extreme length to go to in order to set up a practical joke.

Thank you for your input, L. Ron.

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:15 pm**

Frigidus wrote:
mordigan wrote:centuries of biblical theology

Sure, the Bible agrees with the Bible, but that's tautological. If the Bible matched up better with history or science I might at least give it some credit, but as it is there's nothing backing it up but itself.

I call foul!!

The Bible is historically, archeologically & scientifically accurate. There are zero errors in any of those categories.

And circular reasoning is in the evolutionary points of so called evidence to support evolution. How so?
Ask an evolutionist how do they determine how old the soil is and they will tell you that it's based on what dinosaur bones are found in such layers of the soil. Then ask the same evolutionist how do they determine how old the dinosaur bones are and they will tell you that it's based on what layer of soil it's found in.

Evolution is indeed circular reasoning. This is found in museums as fact.. HOKEM

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:27 pm**

Frigidus wrote:
universalchiro wrote:Kind is a grouping of a type of family of creatures. For example: wolf, coyote, puddle, etc are a kind of dog.
Lion, tiger, puma, house cat are a kind of cat.
Anyone have one, just one observable evidence of Darwin's evolution from one kind to another? Please give me one example & don't use adaptation or specialization for that's not a change of kind.
Something I can observe without having to go on faith.

Well, the definition isn't exactly concrete (I'm guessing that you'd consider "bird" to be about as much a kind as "dog" despite one being a class while the other is a family), but all right. Either way, at least we've got some goalposts laid down.
Speaking of birds, I'm guessing that the evolution of birds from dinosaurs meet your criteria.
Let's start with physical characteristics that birds and the particular dinosaurs they descended from, "especially those of their own clade, the Maniraptora, which includes Velociraptor", share.
Pubis (one of the three bones making up the vertebrate pelvis) shifted from an anterior to a more posterior orientation (see Saurischia), and bearing a small distal "boot".
Elongated arms and forelimbs and clawed manus (hands).
Large orbits (eye openings in the skull).
Flexible wrist with a semi-lunate carpal (wrist bone).
Hollow, thin-walled bones.
3-fingered opposable grasping manus (hand), 4-toed pes (foot); but supported by 3 main toes.
Reduced, posteriorly stiffened tail.
Elongated metatarsals (bones of the feet between the ankle and toes).
S-shaped curved neck.
Erect, digitgrade (ankle held well off the ground) stance with feet postitioned directly below the body.
Similar eggshell microstructure.
Teeth with a constriction between the root and the crown.
Functional basis for wing power stroke present in arms and pectoral girdle (during motion, the arms were swung down and forward, then up and backwards, describing a "figure-eight" when viewed laterally).
Expanded pneumatic sinuses in the skull.
Five or more vertebrae incorporated into the sacrum (hip).
Straplike scapula (shoulder blade).
Clavicles (collarbone) fused to form a furcula (wishbone).
Hingelike ankle joint, with movement mostly restricted to the fore-aft plane.
Secondary bony palate (nostrils open posteriorly in throat).
Possibly feathers... this awaits more study. Small, possibly feathered dinosaurs were recently found in China. It appears that many coelurosaurs were cloaked in an external fibrous covering that could be called "protofeathers."
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html

None of the list made by evolutionist to support evolution is observable & testable. And there are flaws in the information as well.
1. Dinosaurs had porous bone. This doesn't mean they evolved into birds, this means that gravity was weaker when dinosaurs roamed the earth.
2. Similar eggs? This is such a rudimentary mistake by evolutionist. Birds have a calcium enriched shell. Whereas dinosaurs had a leathery based shell.

Logically any shared components of anatomy could just as viably mean they were created by the same creator from the same material. ie the ground. So to exclusively say that your so called list is evolutionary evidence, is near sighted. For it equally is evidence of both created by same creator.

More disturbing about the efforts of Evolutionist to support their belief is to falsify evidence that there is a so called link from one kind to another. Here since we are talking about dinosaurs to birds. Archaeoraptor discoverer has been striped of his accolades for lying & falsifying his so called evidence... FOR SHAME!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:55 pm**

Frigidus wrote:
universalchiro wrote:
Frigidus wrote:kind?

Kind is a grouping of a type of family of creatures. For example: wolf, coyote, puddle, etc are a kind of dog.
Lion, tiger, puma, house cat are a kind of cat.

Anyone have one, just one observable evidence of Darwin's evolution from one kind to another? Please give me one example & don't use adaptation or specialization for that's not a change of kind.

Something I can observe without having to go on faith.

I won't just keep dumping articles here, as that would be just as bad as posting an hour long YouTube video, but if you want more I can get more.

Frigidus, humans are flawed and prone to mistakes. Even you. For you commented on rishaed posting an hour long Youtube video. But the video he posted was only 38 minutes long, 4 minutes of which were postscript credits. So his video was only 34 minutes long. Which means you were wrong by 44%. So what if you are wrong about evolution? Something that you know is not observable, nor testable of Darwin's evolution of kinds. Proof of this, is you gave me so called evidence that is not observable today. This change of kind happened some 65 million years ago. "Allegedly"

The fact that you don't understand how radioactive Isotopic dating works and the shortcoming & flaws with this dating system, should be a red flag to your conscience that you are blindly believing in something that is flawed at best.

Frigidus,
You think of yourself as a moral person, a good person. Right? Right. And you may even believe in some type of afterlife (most people do, even if they are an atheist).
I know you have told a lie before, we all have. We call someone that has told a lot of lies a liar. I know you have taken something that didn't belong to you, we all have. We call someone that has stolen a thief. I know you have looked at a women and lusted after her, we all have. The Bible says if we look upon a woman with lust in our hearts, we are an adulterer. I know you have said the Lord's name in vain, we all have. Saying the Lord's name in vain is blasphemy.
So that means you are a liar, a thief, an adulterer & a blasphemer. The Bible says those that are a liar, a thief, an adulterer & blasphemer will not inherent eternal life. And I'm right there with you. Guilty of the very same things and more.
The Bible declares that God is a just judge, and that He will judge righteously and thoroughly for every wrong doing. And we can't pay for the penalty of our wrong doings. We can't pay the cost. For the cost is death.
So God is so loving that He sent His only Son. Jesus to be God in the flesh & pay in full the entire cost of all the sins of those that believe in Jesus. This fulfilled God's law & satisfied His fierce judgement on those that believe.

All you have to do is confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord, That He died on the Cross, buried and rose from the grave 3 days later.

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2013 10:58 pm**

universalchiro wrote:None of the list made by evolutionist to support evolution is observable & testable. And there are flaws in the information as well.

What? Picking one at random, certain dinosaurs and birds both have furculae (wishbones). Nothing else does. This is most definitely observable.

universalchiro wrote:1. Dinosaurs had porous bone. This doesn't mean they evolved into birds, this means that gravity was weaker when dinosaurs roamed the earth.

Source needed. Preferably a source that has been peer reviewed.

universalchiro wrote:2. Similar eggs? This is such a rudimentary mistake by evolutionist. Birds have a calcium enriched shell. Whereas dinosaurs had a leathery based shell.

Similar eggshell microstructure, chiro. Here:

Microstructure describes the microscopic characteristics of the eggshell, including crystal orientation and habit, shell unit size and shape, lines of crystal growth, and changes in structural aspects of the shell. Shell units are the often interlocking individual crystals that make up the basic crystalline structure of the shell

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/science/eg ... shell2.php

universalchiro wrote:Logically any shared components of anatomy could just as viably mean they were created by the same creator from the same material. ie the ground. So to exclusively say that your so called list is evolutionary evidence, is near sighted. For it equally is evidence of both created by same creator.

Your claim is completely unfounded. We have strong enough evidence in the fossil record that suggests birds evolved from dinosaurs that there is essentially no debate among scientists about it any more. You could easily use this same argument on the foxes and wolves that you previously conceded were within the same "kind". That you have to resort to the "God did it" trump card to explain these similarities between early birds and their relatively close dinosaur ancestors shows how little ground you have to stand on. It is literally just as strong of an argument as if you said "reality is all an illusion, so your evidence doesn't exist".

universalchiro wrote:More disturbing about the efforts of Evolutionist to support their belief is to falsify evidence that there is a so called link from one kind to another. Here since we are talking about dinosaurs to birds. Archaeoraptor discoverer has been striped of his accolades for lying & falsifying his so called evidence... FOR SHAME!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor

One hoax does not invalidate an entire field of study, nor does it have any impact on evidence that has not been forged. Also keep in mind that it was not creationists that discovered it was a hoax, but other "Evolutionists".

universalchiro wrote:Frigidus, humans are flawed and prone to mistakes. Even you. For you commented on rishaed posting an hour long Youtube video. But the video he posted was only 38 minutes long, 4 minutes of which were postscript credits. So his video was only 34 minutes long. Which means you were wrong by 44%.

If I had felt that listing the exact length of the video was important to my argument I would have. As it is this is about the nit-pickiest complaint I can think of.

universalchiro wrote:So what if you are wrong about evolution? Something that you know is not observable, nor testable of Darwin's evolution of kinds. Proof of this, is you gave me so called evidence that is not observable today. This change of kind happened some 65 million years ago. "Allegedly"

This is silly. This argument could be just as easily used to argue against continental drift or our models of star lifetimes. Some things don't occur in a time frame such that they can not be directly observed within our relatively minute life spans. I might as well argue that I've never seen an atom with my own two eyes so they don't exist (electron microscopes are all hoaxes!).

universalchiro wrote:The fact that you don't understand how radioactive Isotopic dating works and the shortcoming & flaws with this dating system, should be a red flag to your conscience that you are blindly believing in something that is flawed at best.

Hey, I'm not the one suggesting that we would use radiometric dating on coal and oil. Feel free to point out the specific ways that I don't understand the system.

universalchiro wrote:You think of yourself as a moral person, a good person. Right? Right. And you may even believe in some type of afterlife (most people do, even if they are an atheist).
I know you have told a lie before, we all have. We call someone that has told a lot of lies a liar. I know you have taken something that didn't belong to you, we all have. We call someone that has stolen a thief. I know you have looked at a women and lusted after her, we all have. The Bible says if we look upon a woman with lust in our hearts, we are an adulterer. I know you have said the Lord's name in vain, we all have. Saying the Lord's name in vain is blasphemy.
So that means you are a liar, a thief, an adulterer & a blasphemer. The Bible says those that are a liar, a thief, an adulterer & blasphemer will not inherent eternal life. And I'm right there with you. Guilty of the very same things and more.
The Bible declares that God is a just judge, and that He will judge righteously and thoroughly for every wrong doing. And we can't pay for the penalty of our wrong doings. We can't pay the cost. For the cost is death.
So God is so loving that He sent His only Son. Jesus to be God in the flesh & pay in full the entire cost of all the sins of those that believe in Jesus. This fulfilled God's law & satisfied His fierce judgement on those that believe.

All you have to do is confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord, That He died on the Cross, buried and rose from the grave 3 days later.

I would suggest that the particular religion someone subscribes to is a poor way of judging character, although that is a philosophical conversation for another thread.

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2013 11:51 pm**

Frigidus wrote:
universalchrio wrote:Why do you take this great leap of faith that the "Constant Rate of Decay" has always been constant? Why? Because it's faith based.

By this standard everything is faith based. I'm taking for granted that my memories are accurate. I'm taking for granted that my senses are showing me an accurate picture of reality. I'm taking for granted that objects continue to exist when I'm not looking at them. Saying that these are faith based assumptions in the same way that a belief in God is a faith based assumption makes the term entirely meaningless.

Maybe meaningless is too strong a term here. Granted that we rely on such assumptions (e.g. sensory inputs are real enough over time for observing, thinking, concluding, etc.), the radical skeptics may* have one on us--in that, we can't say we with absolute certainty that our approach is True. However, those who have faith in god, Thor, etc. would never lead themselves to this conclusion (i.e. agnosticism). Instead, they insist that he is absolutely true, which is an odd and inconsistent divergence. That divergence is what real faith drives toward, while this "faith" in our sensual inputs is not at all the same kind of "faith"--as universalchiro insists.

I In short, faith != "faith"; therefore, he's wrong. And, I think we'd agree on this. <high fives>

*Adhering to pragmatism or Wittgenstein's writings on 'language games' has been a useful sidestep around the radical skeptics for me.

Posted: **Sun Aug 11, 2013 3:53 am**

universalchiro wrote:The Bible is historically, archeologically & scientifically accurate. There are zero errors in any of those categories.

How did I miss this gem? Oh wow, where to even begin...OK, let's start with something small. There is no evidence that there were ever Jewish slaves in Egypt. There is no evidence of an exodus across Sinai. There is no record in Egypt of a mass departure of slaves (certainly there was no mention of the death of every first born son). There is no record in Israel of a sudden influx of population. No cultural bleed occurred between the Egyptians and Jews which would be reasonably expected. Modern understanding of Egyptian culture suggests that slaves were not actually used in the construction of the pyramids.

universalchiro wrote:And circular reasoning is in the evolutionary points of so called evidence to support evolution. How so?
Ask an evolutionist how do they determine how old the soil is and they will tell you that it's based on what dinosaur bones are found in such layers of the soil. Then ask the same evolutionist how do they determine how old the dinosaur bones are and they will tell you that it's based on what layer of soil it's found in.

Again, radiometric dating is used to determine age. While there are methods of measuring the age of soil fairly accurately up to 100,000 years we primarily measure the age of rocks and fossils within the soil. Sure, biostratigraphy was relied on heavily in Darwin's time but we have come a long way since then.

Edit: For the record this is also how we have determined the age of the planet.

Posted: **Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:59 am**

Jdsizzleslice wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Jdsizzleslice wrote:
crispybits wrote:But why is it ridiculous BBS - can they PROVE it's not true - if not then by some of their own logic we must believe it is true because that book God created this morning that tells us about how he created it in 6 days (a day to God is about a milli micro nanosecond to us) is obviously the only thing to be trusted and anyone who speaks against it's literal truth once you redefine about half the words in there is a liar nd is going straight to hell!

Can you find anything else that says "This is how the start of it happened" that isn't a theory? The Bible is the only piece of documentation that clearly stated how the universe came into existence. Theories like The Big Bang Theory, and Evolution, are mere theories. The definition of a theory is pretty much a temporary explanation. It's not truth, it just says what some scientists think how the universe came about.

You don't seem to have a very firm grasp on what the idea of "theory" means in scientific circles. For example, the theory of gravity.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:However, the Bible is the only one that sets the facts in stone.

Did I somehow overlook that you were being sarcastic? Surely this is sarcasm, isn't it?

No. No sarcasm at all. Lol gravity isn't a theory... Wow...

All of mankind is flawed. Why is there no smallest measurement of any kind... If all of us were perfect we would have the smallest kind of measurements for all types of dimensions.

I've seen some strange posts in my time but never has anyone claimed anything as just plain wrong as 'Lol gravity isn't a theory'.Is it even possible to reach adulthood in a developed country without coming across some mention of the theory of gravity?

Posted: **Sun Aug 11, 2013 5:14 pm**

Don't mention the Planck length chang whatever you do :wink:

Posted: **Sun Aug 11, 2013 7:37 pm**

chang50 wrote:
I've seen some strange posts in my time but never has anyone claimed anything as just plain wrong as 'Lol gravity isn't a theory'.Is it even possible to reach adulthood in a developed country without coming across some mention of the theory of gravity?

Chang
It seems you may have missed this opportunity to shine with knowledge. For Gravity hasn't been a theory in many decades. It has been elevated to fact. You might want to revisit this theory of gravity & join the rest of the sages with Gravity being fact.

""Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few."
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Posted: **Sun Aug 11, 2013 8:06 pm**

universalchiro wrote:
chang50 wrote:
I've seen some strange posts in my time but never has anyone claimed anything as just plain wrong as 'Lol gravity isn't a theory'.Is it even possible to reach adulthood in a developed country without coming across some mention of the theory of gravity?

Chang
It seems you may have missed this opportunity to shine with knowledge. For Gravity hasn't been a theory in many decades. It has been elevated to fact. You might want to revisit this theory of gravity & join the rest of the sages with Gravity being fact.

That sounds like one of those 'faith based assumptions' you'd mentioned earlier.

Posted: **Sun Aug 11, 2013 8:25 pm**

Frigidus wrote:
universalchiro wrote:The Bible is historically, archeologically & scientifically accurate. There are zero errors in any of those categories.

How did I miss this gem? Oh wow, where to even begin...OK, let's start with something small. There is no evidence that there were ever Jewish slaves in Egypt. There is no evidence of an exodus across Sinai. There is no record in Egypt of a mass departure of slaves (certainly there was no mention of the death of every first born son). There is no record in Israel of a sudden influx of population. No cultural bleed occurred between the Egyptians and Jews which would be reasonably expected. Modern understanding of Egyptian culture suggests that slaves were not actually used in the construction of the pyramids.

Wow you have really missed an easy one. So you think the pyramids were not built by slaves? You don't know your history to well here. What's next, no Jews were murdered in WWII?

universalchiro wrote:And circular reasoning is in the evolutionary points of so called evidence to support evolution. How so?
Ask an evolutionist how do they determine how old the soil is and they will tell you that it's based on what dinosaur bones are found in such layers of the soil. Then ask the same evolutionist how do they determine how old the dinosaur bones are and they will tell you that it's based on what layer of soil it's found in.

Again, radiometric dating is used to determine age. While there are methods of measuring the age of soil fairly accurately up to 100,000 years we primarily measure the age of rocks and fossils within the soil. Sure, biostratigraphy was relied on heavily in Darwin's time but we have come a long way since then.

Edit: For the record this is also how we have determined the age of the planet.[/quote]

Wow, you don't see the flaws in radioactive dating. Have you not studied for yourself? you only list what others say & take it as gospel truth. The rate of decay that radioactive isotopic dating uses to calculate age is NOT constant. This was well laid out for you a couple of post ago. You seem to have a closed mind and are unwilling to seek truth. You would rather believe a lie, then the truth.
You don't want truth. You want evolution.

Frigidus, you merely seek to reply to each written truth of creation to try to dispel, but you only reveal your love of believing evolution versus actually seeking truth. This is a sad state. For you may already be possessed with a depraved mind. You don't want truth. You already know all in your mind. I'm moving on. If you change your mind, you'll have to PM me to reopen discussion. For I am convinced you are not a truth seeker, you are an evolution seeker and you don't care if it's filled with error. Goodbye.

Posted: **Sun Aug 11, 2013 8:38 pm**

The Cross of Nonscience is heavy.

Posted: **Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:57 pm**

universalchiro wrote:
chang50 wrote:
I've seen some strange posts in my time but never has anyone claimed anything as just plain wrong as 'Lol gravity isn't a theory'.Is it even possible to reach adulthood in a developed country without coming across some mention of the theory of gravity?

Chang
It seems you may have missed this opportunity to shine with knowledge. For Gravity hasn't been a theory in many decades. It has been elevated to fact. You might want to revisit this theory of gravity & join the rest of the sages with Gravity being fact.

You might want to get an education and bring yourself up above the level of the chimp. Hey...you could evolve!

Conquer Club

Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here