DeletedUser
That's very true, because I assumed there was brain at the other end trying to understand it.
personal attacks to not an effective argument make
- Status
personal attacks to not an effective argument make
DeletedUser
tsk, tsk. i didn't mention anyone by name. YOU did.
DeletedUser
Intelligentence in creation prove intelligent design, for one.
Science proves that intelligence is not natural and does not comes out of nowhere, but that it is either learned, or given. Out of chaos does not come order, and perect unity cannot come from chance.
Even if scientists could recreate prehistoric times and cause life to come together, all that would prove is that an intelligent intervener had to be there.
And if we evolved, then why are we sentient beings? Further, why are we the only sentient beings on Earth? What need is sentiency to survive as a species? There is none, it is a gift given by an Intelligent designer.
Talk to any mathematician, even if he/she is an atheist, they will agree that the universe appears to have been mathematically engineered. Everything in it comes together so perfectly. It is truly amazing.
Science proves that intelligence is not natural and does not comes out of nowhere, but that it is either learned, or given. Out of chaos does not come order, and perect unity cannot come from chance.
Even if scientists could recreate prehistoric times and cause life to come together, all that would prove is that an intelligent intervener had to be there.
And if we evolved, then why are we sentient beings? Further, why are we the only sentient beings on Earth? What need is sentiency to survive as a species? There is none, it is a gift given by an Intelligent designer.
Talk to any mathematician, even if he/she is an atheist, they will agree that the universe appears to have been mathematically engineered. Everything in it comes together so perfectly. It is truly amazing.
DeletedUser
Nobody said that humans came from monkeys (or apes), other than people trying to disprove evolution. What science does say is that humans and apes have some common ancestors. Those they/we had in common were alive millions of years ago, so why would you expect any of them to still be alive now.
There are constant mutations of genes in most, if not all, animals; in fact, I'd be very surprised to find that there was even one human alive who didn't have at least one mutated gene. Most mutations don't have any noticeable effects. Those that are detrimental tend to not be passed on (often because of sterility, and at other times undesirability to others of the species). Those that are helpful tend to be passed on, which is what survival of the fittest is all about.
DeletedUser
Are you honestly telling me the evolution theory never said we came from apes? You guys have backpedaled immensely. Okay, then what of other animals, it seems they are where the're going to be for the next few million years until they evolve into something else. So why is there no middle-species, the one between the former and the finished, better product? Supposedly, according to the theory of natural selection, evolution helps animals be better suited to their environment, so why does it seem that every animal discovered is set in its environment perfectly already? Did we miss everything? Or is the theory filled with gaps and holes? Please explain.
DeletedUser
People have corrected you and others about that many times on here, so I don't see where you get that anybody is backpedaling - I'm also curious to know who "you guys" are. Do you honestly believe that the fossils discovered to date are the only animals that have ever existed? I'd guess that the reason that no "middle species" still exist is that they evolved because they had to adapt to their environment. The reason that "every animal discovered is set in its environment perfectly" is that those that are in the wrong environment don't survive; only those that are right for the environment will continue to exist there.
DeletedUser
Okay, i guess i could follow that, but interesting enough, the fossil record shows that life came about suddenly, and if evolution is factual, then it would show a gradual change of some sort in a species, but from the oldest fossil till now there is little to no change in any of these fossils. If it was so factual, then there shouldn't be a problem in finding a perfect fossil of a middle species.
The only thing that scientists can prove is that life comes from life. Life cannot come from a lifeless matter that the theory of evolution states it does.
The only thing that scientists can prove is that life comes from life. Life cannot come from a lifeless matter that the theory of evolution states it does.
DeletedUser
Precisely because creationism is a faith-based postulation, which means it poses a belief and then attempts to find data that supports that belief, whilst ignoring any data that conflicts with said belief. That's not how the sciences work, and therefore there is no "proof" of creationism. Blondie's ridiculous claim of intelligence being proof of intelligent design is circular reasoning and is not proof. The basis for proof is the presentation of data that demonstrates causality without contra evidence refuting said data.
As to your comment about microevolution vs macroevolution, again, it is ignorance. You state microevolution is fact, yet claim macroevolution is not. Unfortunately, you are not aware that macroevolution is merely the compounded effects of microevolution, or basically multiple, sequential, microevolutions constitutes a macroevolution. Therefore, as you have indicated microevolution is fact, with macroevolution the sum of it's parts are fact.
"transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution” ~ Ernst W. Mayr
Misleading to make the distinction, ignorant to unknowingly repeat that erroneous distinction. Apologies if my words offend you spider, but everyone has a degree of ignorance in them on one or many topics. The problem arises when they demonstrate that ignorance, something of which I tend to pounce on.
Even though I already responded to this in the previous paragraphs, I really need to firmly debunk this, as someone on the internet is wrong! omg!
Seriously though, wow, you couldn't be more wrong and I strongly recommend you start taking your sources with a huge grain of salt, as they are so amazingly inaccurate, it's embarrassing:
Speciation in the apple maggot fly: a blend of vintages? ~ Jiggins CD, Bridle JR (2004)
Speciation by Natural and Sexual Selection: Models and Experiments ~ Mark Kirkpatrick and Virginie Ravigne (2002)
Evidence for Rapid Speciation following a Founder Event in the Laboratory ~ James R. Weingberg, Victoria R. Starczak, and Daniele Jorg (1992)
Laboratory Experiments on Speciation: What we have learned in 40 years? ~ William R. Rice and Ellen E. HOstert (1993)
Observed Instances of Speciation ~ Joseph Boxhorn (1995)
Some More Observed Speciation Events ~ Chris Stassen, James Merritt, Anneliese Lilje, L. Drew Davis (1997)
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent ~ Douglas Theobald Ph.D. (2007)
Blondie14, actually I provided evidence in earlier threads at these forums, but if you want to start a thread about evolution, I'll not only link those posts, I'll provide additional evidence. What I won't do is further derail this thread.
Indeed, between 200 b.c., to 68 a.d., which makes them at least 130 years younger than Alexander's time...
What are you talking about? I didn't give any links to wikipedia. I gave links to pbs.org, livius.org, athenaeum.nl, biblequery.org (from the site you presented), and to books. Obviously you didn't even bother to click on any of the links, demonstrating you have absolutely no interest in gaining an education.
DeletedUser
Some, most, of your links are, and argueing with you takes neither of us anywhere.
You and I argueing is pointless.
Ill post the next prophecy tomorrow, when im not falling asleep.
You and I argueing is pointless.
Ill post the next prophecy tomorrow, when im not falling asleep.
DeletedUser
wow hell you atrribute many sites as my scources except im not familier with ANY of those scources
furthermore the whole mirco is macro argument has been proven again and again as completely impossible as it would have absolutely had to leave a large trail on the fossil record yet it doesnt
furthermore the whole mirco is macro argument has been proven again and again as completely impossible as it would have absolutely had to leave a large trail on the fossil record yet it doesnt
DeletedUser
Perhaps the evolution debate would be best in another thread of its own.
And i agree with you fully, lspiderl
And i agree with you fully, lspiderl
DeletedUser
you made the statement with a quote of my post so um yeah it was STRONGLY INFEREDtsk, tsk. i didn't mention anyone by name. YOU did.
DeletedUser
Who's arguing?
You asked me for something, I delivered, then you act like I never posted anything.
You asked me for evidence, I delivered, then you claim I linked wikipedia when I did not (and rarely do I link to wikipedia, so your later assertion is repeating the lie), thus not even acknowledging the evidence provided, let alone bothering to even read any of it.
Look Blondie, if you're going to ask me to debate the topic, to present evidence and/or proof, and I do just that, then you run off and not have the balls to actually debate the topic, don't bother posting in these forums because absolutely nobody likes a forum troll. This forum is specifically for debate & discussion, not trolling. Step up or step out.
Wow, maybe you want to reread what I posted, as I wasn't talking to, nor referring to, you.
Your empty rebuttal was way too quick, demonstrating you didn't even bother to read the evidence provided.
DeletedUser
guess i did read that wrong so ignore that line
as for the rebutal oh look i can do a simple google searcha nd find a buncha articles supporting my side too HURRAY /sarcarm off
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0737_Macro_vs._Micro_Evol.html
http://www.mattox.com/genome/micro-macro.html
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/micromacro.htm
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml
the simple fact is the data is the same its only how each side views teh data that is differnt
the simply fact is that there is NO provable record of ANY animal EVER in history having an intermediary
its not jstu about humans and there predisecors its about EVERY animal in history if evolution was all a ton of animals constatly making small changes all over the place to make a ton of new animals the fossil record would be littered with intermediaries on ALL levels and yet its not
DeletedUser
There's a huge difference between your links and the ones I provided. Yours are from bloggers with absolutely no scientific background and failing utterly to effectively address the issue, whilst I provided links to scientific journals and research summaries that are specifically addressing the issue at hand. So no, your links do not in any way rebut what I presented, and if you honestly believe they do, then perhaps you would like to buy this bridge I own in Brooklyn.
DeletedUser
accualy most of them are from creationist SCIENTISTS whereas all your links are from EVOLUTIONIST scientists whereby my links are every bit as valid as yours and those links only took 20 secons to search and post i could accualy look and find a million more scources with ease my friend
the simple fact remains creationism is every bit as valid a theory as evolution im openminded enuff to accept that while youve proven your too closed minded to even consider the possiblity that someone elses theory has merit and no that wasnt a personal insult mearly a statement of observable fact
DeletedUser
I truly doubt any of the bloggers you mentioned have any degrees, let alone degrees in the respective fields.
DeletedUser
Well, a formal education is not a necessity, but an ability to learn is.
A lot of people do not understand the Theory of Evolution, Hellstrom, and you and I have helped them to fill in the gaps in their knowledge, but some people just plain do not want to learn. They do not educate themselves by following links or considering arguments - they only want to go on repeating themselves over and over. Some have a literacy age in the low teens, which is probably itself an indicator of an inability to absorb information and modify behaviour.
I am not out to bash anyone's religion, but when people misunderstand science I like to help them out. Sometimes it goes beyond lack of education and becomes wilful ignorance, and there is no point in wasting breath on such people. Logic, reason and scientific understanding will be forever beyond their reach. Scientists work hard collecting and analysing data and expanding the boundaries of human knowledge, constantly checking and challenging their own work. Biblical ayatollahs will never get this approach to life so we should leave them to the sterile workings of their own minds and their cheap certainties.
I think it's pretty clear to the unbiased reader where the logic, reason and thoughtful debate is coming from, so maybe we should just leave it at that.
A lot of people do not understand the Theory of Evolution, Hellstrom, and you and I have helped them to fill in the gaps in their knowledge, but some people just plain do not want to learn. They do not educate themselves by following links or considering arguments - they only want to go on repeating themselves over and over. Some have a literacy age in the low teens, which is probably itself an indicator of an inability to absorb information and modify behaviour.
I am not out to bash anyone's religion, but when people misunderstand science I like to help them out. Sometimes it goes beyond lack of education and becomes wilful ignorance, and there is no point in wasting breath on such people. Logic, reason and scientific understanding will be forever beyond their reach. Scientists work hard collecting and analysing data and expanding the boundaries of human knowledge, constantly checking and challenging their own work. Biblical ayatollahs will never get this approach to life so we should leave them to the sterile workings of their own minds and their cheap certainties.
I think it's pretty clear to the unbiased reader where the logic, reason and thoughtful debate is coming from, so maybe we should just leave it at that.
DeletedUser
It's because hell, all of your information is bias and on-sided, not from independent resources.
Onto the next prophecy that was indeed fulfilled.
Now, this is a modern fulfillment, and even if you can't agree with Daniel being written in 536 B.C. and even if it was written in A.D. (which it was't) this prophecy is indeed spoken before its fulfillment and there is no arguement as far as date goes.
Daniel 4
It contains the full prophecy, and is too long for one post, so please read it for yourself.
There King Nebuchadnezzar had a dream of an immense tree, that could be seen throughout the entire Earth, but then was cut down, and banded, so that seven times would pass over it.
Daniel, through God's help, interpretted the dream, and said that the tree was The king, and that he would be taken off his throne, and become as a beast in the field, for seven times.
A time is usually refered to as a year, so for seven years for the hebrwe calendar, which is 360 days, the King was as a beast in the field, but he was restored to his throne.
Now, that was done, but looking at the wording, the tree there clearly symbolizes something much more than the Kingship of Nebuchadnezzar. This represents the Kingdom of God, or the Kingdom that he would choose. A time is often a year, consisting of 360 days by the hebrew calendar. And in revelation, 3 and a half times is 1260 days.
But in many cases, a day is prophetically refered to as a year, so 7 x 360 is 2520. In Ezekiel 4:6 it confirms this.
So these seven times would be 2,520 years. But when would the time be counted?
Well, since King Nebuchadnezzar's time started when he left the throne, so it would be for the throne under God. And the last King appointed by was a Judean King, and when Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C., the clock started. The end of those 2520 would land in the autumn of 1914.
All of this information can be found in the March, 1880 edition of The Watchtower. That also shows that it was known before 1914 that it would be a year of great turmoil. Since Jesus would only be enthroned after Satan was cast out of heaven, then the prophecy in Revelation 12: 7,12 Where war broke out in heaven, and satan was hurled down to the Earth after Jesus had won and claimed his throne, then satan was cast down to Earth and would start fullfilling the things said in Matthew 24:4-9
Where "nation will rise against nation and kingdom against Kingdom and there will be great earthquakes and food shortages"
And in Luke it also mentions , "Pestilences" or illnesses.
So all these things were foretold to take place after 1914.
So what happend in the autumn of 1914? Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated and the world was engulfed in the bloodiest war in history. Where multiple nations rose against multiple nations. Soon followed after that was the spanish flu influenza. Which took many lives with it. Along with that in the 30's there was the stock morket crash, which caused many to go hungry, thus having food shortages.
hen quickly followed was a second World War, which was far more bloody than the first, it introduced the Atomic Bomb which killed as many Japanese with two explosions as many as all the americans lives lost in the war.
And since 1914 there has been an 800% increase in Earthquakes and their lethality.
All of this was prophesied down to the very year it would start, in the book of Daniel.
It took a lot of study for me to get this far, and it wasn't easy.
Onto the next prophecy that was indeed fulfilled.
Now, this is a modern fulfillment, and even if you can't agree with Daniel being written in 536 B.C. and even if it was written in A.D. (which it was't) this prophecy is indeed spoken before its fulfillment and there is no arguement as far as date goes.
Daniel 4
It contains the full prophecy, and is too long for one post, so please read it for yourself.
There King Nebuchadnezzar had a dream of an immense tree, that could be seen throughout the entire Earth, but then was cut down, and banded, so that seven times would pass over it.
Daniel, through God's help, interpretted the dream, and said that the tree was The king, and that he would be taken off his throne, and become as a beast in the field, for seven times.
A time is usually refered to as a year, so for seven years for the hebrwe calendar, which is 360 days, the King was as a beast in the field, but he was restored to his throne.
Now, that was done, but looking at the wording, the tree there clearly symbolizes something much more than the Kingship of Nebuchadnezzar. This represents the Kingdom of God, or the Kingdom that he would choose. A time is often a year, consisting of 360 days by the hebrew calendar. And in revelation, 3 and a half times is 1260 days.
But in many cases, a day is prophetically refered to as a year, so 7 x 360 is 2520. In Ezekiel 4:6 it confirms this.
So these seven times would be 2,520 years. But when would the time be counted?
Well, since King Nebuchadnezzar's time started when he left the throne, so it would be for the throne under God. And the last King appointed by was a Judean King, and when Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C., the clock started. The end of those 2520 would land in the autumn of 1914.
All of this information can be found in the March, 1880 edition of The Watchtower. That also shows that it was known before 1914 that it would be a year of great turmoil. Since Jesus would only be enthroned after Satan was cast out of heaven, then the prophecy in Revelation 12: 7,12 Where war broke out in heaven, and satan was hurled down to the Earth after Jesus had won and claimed his throne, then satan was cast down to Earth and would start fullfilling the things said in Matthew 24:4-9
Where "nation will rise against nation and kingdom against Kingdom and there will be great earthquakes and food shortages"
And in Luke it also mentions , "Pestilences" or illnesses.
So all these things were foretold to take place after 1914.
So what happend in the autumn of 1914? Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated and the world was engulfed in the bloodiest war in history. Where multiple nations rose against multiple nations. Soon followed after that was the spanish flu influenza. Which took many lives with it. Along with that in the 30's there was the stock morket crash, which caused many to go hungry, thus having food shortages.
hen quickly followed was a second World War, which was far more bloody than the first, it introduced the Atomic Bomb which killed as many Japanese with two explosions as many as all the americans lives lost in the war.
And since 1914 there has been an 800% increase in Earthquakes and their lethality.
All of this was prophesied down to the very year it would start, in the book of Daniel.
It took a lot of study for me to get this far, and it wasn't easy.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
yeah i gotta say you constaly post from blatantly biased scources of athiest scientitsts trying to prove there belief true but then bash any scource that has a creationist perspective as biased
theres a blatant hipocracy in this
then you guys have the audacity to claim that anyone who doesnt choose to follow YOUR logic is willfully ignorant ? and uneducated ?
the line your crossing makes any further debate pointless as youve essentualy pulled the debate equivilant of taking your ball and going home because you didnt get your way
theres a blatant hipocracy in this
then you guys have the audacity to claim that anyone who doesnt choose to follow YOUR logic is willfully ignorant ? and uneducated ?
the line your crossing makes any further debate pointless as youve essentualy pulled the debate equivilant of taking your ball and going home because you didnt get your way
- Status