[_ Old Earth _] God makes his existence plain

[Heidi]

When one considers the intelligence in even one fertilized egg (which contains DNA coding that enables a speck no larger than a speck of dust to turn into a complex human being) unseen by the naked eye, then it is inconceivable that anyone can deny that God exists. God has made his existence plain by the existence of every living thing that is derived by the DNA coding in a microscopic speck.

Furthermore, when humans die, their flesh and bones decay and revert back to dust, not apes, proving that humans were created out of dust, not from the wombs of fictitious beasts. So as Romans 1:20 tells us, there's no excuse for denying God. It's just plain ignorance, denial and rebellion leads man to deny God. Well sorry, but God will not be mocked. He will show that he will not be trampled on by those who refuse to be thankful for their lives and His creation. We reap what we sow. :

 

[Dunzo]

When one considers the intelligence in even one fertilized egg (which contains DNA coding that enables a speck no larger than a speck of dust to turn into a complex human being) unseen by the naked eye, then it is inconceivable that anyone can deny that God exists. God has made his existence plain by the existence of every living thing that is derived by the DNA coding in a microscopic speck.

Come back to us when you have a doctorate in Biology. Actually, you know what, that's asking too much. Bachelor's degree? No, too much again. High school science education? Yes, that will suffice. Come back when you have a high school education.

Furthermore, when humans die, their flesh and bones decay and revert back to dust, not apes, proving that humans were created out of dust, not from the wombs of fictitious beasts.

Please tell me you're not serious. When women die, are they supposed to revert back to ribs? The word "stupid" doesn't even begin to cover this one.

So as Romans 1:20 tells us, there's no excuse for denying God.

How about the complete lack of evidence?

It's just plain ignorance, denial and rebellion leads man to deny God. Well sorry, but God will not be mocked. He will show that he will not be trampled on by those who refuse to be thankful for their lives and His creation. We reap what we sow. :

You'd think a perfect God would make it far more obvious that he created us. The utterly faulty "design" that he gave us indicates he's probably a cretinous old man.

 

[Heidi]

When one considers the intelligence in even one fertilized egg (which contains DNA coding that enables a speck no larger than a speck of dust to turn into a complex human being) unseen by the naked eye, then it is inconceivable that anyone can deny that God exists. God has made his existence plain by the existence of every living thing that is derived by the DNA coding in a microscopic speck.

Come back to us when you have a doctorate in Biology. Actually, you know what, that's asking too much. Bachelor's degree? No, too much again. High school science education? Yes, that will suffice. Come back when you have a high school education.

Furthermore, when humans die, their flesh and bones decay and revert back to dust, not apes, proving that humans were created out of dust, not from the wombs of fictitious beasts.

Please tell me you're not serious. When women die, are they supposed to revert back to ribs? The word "stupid" doesn't even begin to cover this one.

[quote:10890]So as Romans 1:20 tells us, there's no excuse for denying God.

How about the complete lack of evidence?

It's just plain ignorance, denial and rebellion leads man to deny God. Well sorry, but God will not be mocked. He will show that he will not be trampled on by those who refuse to be thankful for their lives and His creation. We reap what we sow. :

You'd think a perfect God would make it far more obvious that he created us. The utterly faulty "design" that he gave us indicates he's probably a cretinous old man.[/quote:10890]

And in order to receive a degree in biology, one has to agree with the bogus teachings of science fiction writers called evolutionary scientists. And considering that many scientists disagree with them, then scientists don't agree on much and getting a degree would thus be a waste of time. So I'll stick with God who is never wrong. ;-)

Women are humans and all humans come from other humans. But the original creation of a human came from dust which is where we return. That cannot be disputed. ;-)

Also, if scientists consider themselves intelligent, then they had to receive that intelligence from birth. That proves that their intelligence came from intelligence because a non-intelligent entity can't give someone intelligence. So again, all your arguments backfire because they're nothing more than incoherent ramblings. ;-)

 

[Jayls5]

When one considers the intelligence in even one fertilized egg (which contains DNA coding that enables a speck no larger than a speck of dust to turn into a complex human being) unseen by the naked eye, then it is inconceivable that anyone can deny that God exists. God has made his existence plain by the existence of every living thing that is derived by the DNA coding in a microscopic speck.

Come back to us when you have a doctorate in Biology. Actually, you know what, that's asking too much. Bachelor's degree? No, too much again. High school science education? Yes, that will suffice. Come back when you have a high school education.

Furthermore, when humans die, their flesh and bones decay and revert back to dust, not apes, proving that humans were created out of dust, not from the wombs of fictitious beasts.

Please tell me you're not serious. When women die, are they supposed to revert back to ribs? The word "stupid" doesn't even begin to cover this one.

[quote:34234]So as Romans 1:20 tells us, there's no excuse for denying God.

How about the complete lack of evidence?

[quote:34234]It's just plain ignorance, denial and rebellion leads man to deny God. Well sorry, but God will not be mocked. He will show that he will not be trampled on by those who refuse to be thankful for their lives and His creation. We reap what we sow. :

You'd think a perfect God would make it far more obvious that he created us. The utterly faulty "design" that he gave us indicates he's probably a cretinous old man.[/quote:34234]

And in order to receive a degree in biology, one has to agree with the bogus teachings of science fiction writers called evolutionary scientists. And considering that many scientists disagree with them, then scientists don't agree on much and getting a degree would thus be a waste of time. So I'll stick with God who is never wrong. ;-)

Women are humans and all humans come from other humans. But the original creation of a human came from dust which is where we return. That cannot be disputed. ;-)

Also, if scientists consider themselves intelligent, then they had to receive that intelligence from birth. That proves that their intelligence came from intelligence because a non-intelligent entity can't give someone intelligence. So again, all your arguments backfire because they're nothing more than incoherent ramblings. ;-)[/quote:34234]

By your logic, you can never be smarter than your parents. By that logic, we will continually either be as smart as our parents or get dumber than our parents as time goes on.

Come back when you actually want to debate the merits of the theory and not spout out some ridiculous strawman.

 

[Heidi]

By your logic, you can never be smarter than your parents. By that logic, we will continually either be as smart as our parents or get dumber than our parents as time goes on.

Come back when you actually want to debate the merits of the theory and not spout out some ridiculous strawman.[/quote]

Considering that the first speaking man had parents who couldn't speak, then according to your "logic", children don't have to learn from their parents in order to evolve. ;-) But the only smart one is God. So those who learn from God learn everything we need to know; including understanding why capes can't breed human descendants. So if I got a degree in biology, I would be just as ignorant about basic biology as those who teach evolution are. ;-) But you can go ahead and place blind faith in anyone who has a degree in biology. Then you'll look just as foolish as they will when they finally see why it's impossible. ;-)

 

[Dunzo]

By your logic, you can never be smarter than your parents. By that logic, we will continually either be as smart as our parents or get dumber than our parents as time goes on.

Come back when you actually want to debate the merits of the theory and not spout out some ridiculous strawman.

Considering that the first speaking man had parents who couldn't speak, then according to your "logic", children don't have to learn from their parents in order to evolve. ;-)

Well yeah, they don't. Evolution is not a process that occurs over the lifespan of an organism, it's genetic mutations! You also seem to still think that a fully formed human miraculously sprang from the womb of a fully formed non-human ape. This is wrong.

But the only smart one is God.

Well it certainly isn't you :-?

So those who learn from God learn everything we need to know; including understanding why capes can't breed human descendants.

God doesn't know shit. He thinks that pi = 3!

So if I got a degree in biology, I would be just as ignorant about basic biology as those who teach evolution are. ;-)

You're a complete and utter moron. No, seriously. This exceeds the limits of idiocy. Get a clue.

But you can go ahead and place blind faith in anyone who has a degree in biology. Then you'll look just as foolish as they will when they finally see why it's impossible. ;-)

Or maybe respect the work that they do since they're motivated by the search for knowledge and human progress and devote years of their lives to doing work that ends up saving people's lives, rather than being disingenuous and limiting scientific advancement like you do?

 

[John]

its funny "saving peoples lives" well theres your prove for evolution. :

 

[Dunzo]

its funny "saving peoples lives" well theres your prove for evolution. :

Doctors saying "Your body is perfect and exactly how God intended it" when there's clearly something wrong isn't going to save lives, just hinder medical progress aswell as doom thousands of people to an early death.

 

[John]

its funny "saving peoples lives" well theres your prove for evolution. :

Doctors saying "Your body is perfect and exactly how God intended it" when there's clearly something wrong isn't going to save lives, just hinder medical progress aswell as doom thousands of people to an early death.

science is a neat thing, if you used the methods used for evolutionary study and applied them to medical research and get good result thats awesome, but just because the method works for medical does not mean its a blanket cover for everything we see around us. the original model "Adam" was perfect, since the fall everything has been getting worse.

 

[Ignatz]

its funny "saving peoples lives" well theres your prove for evolution. :

Doctors saying "Your body is perfect and exactly how God intended it" when there's clearly something wrong isn't going to save lives, just hinder medical progress aswell as doom thousands of people to an early death.

science is a neat thing, if you used the methods used for evolutionary study and applied them to medical research and get good result thats awesome, but just because the method works for medical does not mean its a blanket cover for everything we see around us. the original model "Adam" was perfect, since the fall everything has been getting worse.

If evolutionary theory were incorrect, it would not produce "good results". It would completely fall apart, and could not result in new vaccines and technologies that work, for example, which it does very nicely. The fact that the ToE works and can be used to achieve positive results is evidence that it is true.

Your assertion that ToE works for some things within its scope but not others is ridiculous. Thats like saying: Yes, gravity may be responsible for an apple falling from a tree, but it cannot be responsible for keeping the moon in orbit or the tides.

Again, John, in your own words, what is the role of mutation and natural selection in the ToE? :x

 

[Deep Thought]

Furthermore, when humans die, their flesh and bones decay and revert back to dust, not apes, proving that humans were created out of dust, not from the wombs of fictitious beasts.

Congratulations Heidi. I've submitted the above statement to http://www.fstdt.com/ and I think you have a really good chance of being in the Top 100 quotes for 2008. It would certainly be a worthy honour indeed for you.

 

[Heidi]

By your logic, you can never be smarter than your parents. By that logic, we will continually either be as smart as our parents or get dumber than our parents as time goes on.

Come back when you actually want to debate the merits of the theory and not spout out some ridiculous strawman.

Considering that the first speaking man had parents who couldn't speak, then according to your "logic", children don't have to learn from their parents in order to evolve. ;-)

Well yeah, they don't. Evolution is not a process that occurs over the lifespan of an organism, it's genetic mutations! You also seem to still think that a fully formed human miraculously sprang from the womb of a fully formed non-human ape. This is wrong.

[quote:b2a93]But the only smart one is God.

Well it certainly isn't you :-?

So those who learn from God learn everything we need to know; including understanding why capes can't breed human descendants.

God doesn't know I love Jesus a lot. He thinks that pi = 3!

So if I got a degree in biology, I would be just as ignorant about basic biology as those who teach evolution are. ;-)

You're a complete and utter moron. No, seriously. This exceeds the limits of idiocy. Get a clue.

But you can go ahead and place blind faith in anyone who has a degree in biology. Then you'll look just as foolish as they will when they finally see why it's impossible. ;-)

Or maybe respect the work that they do since they're motivated by the search for knowledge and human progress and devote years of their lives to doing work that ends up saving people's lives, rather than being disingenuous and limiting scientific advancement like you do?[/quote:b2a93]

And you forget that there still had to be the first man who said the first words. You cannot get around that. But that's how this ridiculous theory keeps contradicting itself because it's a lie. According to this theory, offsrping keep getting more and better traits from their parents. So this theory negates the fact that man learns from his parents. And considering that this is all imaginary because it doesn't happen in reality, then I can see why evolutionists can't get their stories straight. : And evolutionists wonder why people of ancient times hung on to legends so long? :o They need to look at themselves! ;-)

 

[Dunzo]

Evolutionary theory says nothing of language. However, language "evolves" too. Chimpanzees, for example, communicate quite well, vocally in some cases. Who says that sort of communication couldn't have developed into the languages we see today?
Enough of this "first man" nonsense too, it's a vast oversimplification (or misunderstanding perhaps?) of evolution and won't do if we're going to debate.

 

[John]

Hedi is right, but not just the first words, all the languages we see today, tower of bable anyone ?

 

[Heidi]

Evolutionary theory says nothing of language. However, language "evolves" too. Chimpanzees, for example, communicate quite well, vocally in some cases. Who says that sort of communication couldn't have developed into the languages we see today?
Enough of this "first man" nonsense too, it's a vast oversimplification (or misunderstanding perhaps?) of evolution and won't do if we're going to debate.

Then evolutionists need to think their theory through a lot more carefully because the issue of language and the history of the Jews and ancient people have to be dealt with. One cannot make up stories that contradict reality and ignore what they contradict then call them true. :

So evolutionary scientists only fool those who can't think for themselves which it is intended to do. Once they call themselves "experts' and make up words too long for the common lay person to even want to figure out, they count on the common person not being able to understand them. But once a person begins to think for himself, he sees how impossible and ludicrous this theory is.

So once again, there had to be a first offspring who inherited the gene for vocal cords. (Where it came from nobody knows. So we'll imagine that some other genes just...well...turned into vocal cords like we can imagine that there was once such thing as a flying ape). That means that his parents couldn't have had those genes or there would have been no mutation from his parents. After all, mutation from one's parents is the explanation that evolutionists give for apes evolving into humans. ;-)

 

[Jayls5]

Evolutionary theory says nothing of language. However, language "evolves" too. Chimpanzees, for example, communicate quite well, vocally in some cases. Who says that sort of communication couldn't have developed into the languages we see today?
Enough of this "first man" nonsense too, it's a vast oversimplification (or misunderstanding perhaps?) of evolution and won't do if we're going to debate.

Then evolutionists need to think their theory through a lot more carefully because the issue of language and the history of the Jews and ancient people have to be dealt with. One cannot make up stories that contradict reality and ignore what they contradict then call them true. :

So evolutionary scientists only fool those who can't think for themselves which it is intended to do. Once they call themselves "experts' and make up words too long for the common lay person to even want to figure out, they count on the common person not being able to understand them. But once a person begins to think for himself, he sees how impossible and ludicrous this theory is.

So once again, there had to be a first offspring who inherited the gene for vocal cords. (Where it came from nobody knows. So we'll imagine that some other genes just...well...turned into vocal cords like we can imagine that there was once such thing as a flying ape). That means that his parents couldn't have had those genes or there would have been no mutation from his parents. After all, mutation from one's parents is the explanation that evolutionists give for apes evolving into humans. ;-)

ad hominem, ad hominem, strawman, ad hominem. Thanks for wasting everyone's time again.

 

[Heidi]

Evolutionary theory says nothing of language. However, language "evolves" too. Chimpanzees, for example, communicate quite well, vocally in some cases. Who says that sort of communication couldn't have developed into the languages we see today?
Enough of this "first man" nonsense too, it's a vast oversimplification (or misunderstanding perhaps?) of evolution and won't do if we're going to debate.

Then evolutionists need to think their theory through a lot more carefully because the issue of language and the history of the Jews and ancient people have to be dealt with. One cannot make up stories that contradict reality and ignore what they contradict then call them true. :

So evolutionary scientists only fool those who can't think for themselves which it is intended to do. Once they call themselves "experts' and make up words too long for the common lay person to even want to figure out, they count on the common person not being able to understand them. But once a person begins to think for himself, he sees how impossible and ludicrous this theory is.

So once again, there had to be a first offspring who inherited the gene for vocal cords. (Where it came from nobody knows. So we'll imagine that some other genes just...well...turned into vocal cords like we can imagine that there was once such thing as a flying ape). That means that his parents couldn't have had those genes or there would have been no mutation from his parents. After all, mutation from one's parents is the explanation that evolutionists give for apes evolving into humans. ;-)

ad hominem, ad hominem, strawman, ad hominem. Thanks for wasting everyone's time again.

Since you can't refute my posts or explain your theory without contradicting yourself, then your claims of strawmen are meaningless. Sorry. : In fact, creationists never evade questions or make blanket statements of "strawman" like unbelievers do. But maybe we should start doing that since that's what you think determines a valid argument. :

 

[Jayls5]

Since you can't refute my posts or explain your theory without contradicting yourself, then your claims of strawmen are meaningless. Sorry. : In fact, creationists never evade questions or make blanket statements of "strawman" like unbelievers do. But maybe we should start doing that since that's what you think determines a valid argument. :

No, I've refuted your posts countless times and you have either ignored them, omitted them, or used further strawmans. Until you go back and address all of the old posts properly, you get no such effort on my behave for future posts. Actually, now that I think of it, I recently did respond to one of your posts in a lengthy fashion. Why don't you go ahead and see if you can ignore that one like all of the rest.

 

[John]

i've never seen you refute her posts, i've seen you counter them with another question and such but her posts were never answered.

 

[Deep Thought]

Sorry. : In fact, creationists never evade questions or make blanket statements of "strawman" like unbelievers do. But maybe we should start doing that since that's what you think determines a valid argument. :

:crazyeyes: :crazyeyes: :crazyeyes: :crazyeyes: :crazyeyes: :crazyeyes: