Jump to content

The high price of gas can be largely traced to Joe Biden and Justin Trudeau


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Well, I did a little research on your creation.com sources, and found this which thoroughly REFUTES them:

Assessing Limits to Evolution and to Natural Selection: Reviews of Michael Behe’s “Edge of Evolution” and John Sanford’s “Genetic Entropy”

I will read that BEFORE I watch your video which you have not even summarized.

 

I regret I do not have the knowledge or ability to dig deep into the biological aspect of this.  I mean I could spend days trying to understand the lingo and what they are talking about but I don't think it would be a useful way to spend my days.  It would accomplish nothing because every article is coming from a certain point of view or as you say a bias.  If you want to study the biological aspect of it, go ahead, but I don't see that as a very useful way to understand it.  Maybe read or watch some videos on creation.com that give a more general view that a lay person can understand.  I am not a biologist and am not going to try to be one.  I can only discuss more general information from an ordinary non-scientist point of view.  Many articles break things down so an ordinary person can understand what they are talking about.  Creation.com has many more easier to understand articles and videos.  Also, there are many aspects to this other than the debate over genomes and DNA.  I am not trying to get away from it but just pointing out I don't have the expertise to really get deep into DNA or biology.  I am just being honest with you.

The fact is there are many angles to this creation/evolution debate.  There are issues that are much easier to understand than the deep biological technical issues which neither you nor I are going to be able to discuss rationally.

Such as the fact that there is no transitional fossil record to support evolution.  That the fossil record to show evolution occurred doesn't exist, then the argument for evolution is dead in the water right there.  It doesn't take an expertise in science or biology to understand that.

The second point I would make is simple logic.  Where did the universe come from?  It had to have a beginning.  Matter cannot come into existence without a cause.  Every effect has a cause.  That is a basic principle of science and logic.   Since matter had to have a cause for its existence, that points to a supernatural cause or an intelligent designer Creator.  Many scientists admit that fact.  Others more stubborn try to come up with irrational explanations like the Big Bang theory.  The Big Bang has been debunked because it still does not explain where the material for the explosion came from and an explosion would not create an orderly universe.  Explosions create disorder. 

It also does not explain where atoms, particles, energy and all the laws that govern how it all operates came from.  These law are very precise and orderly.  The particles are amazing in how they operate such as the electron and proton and neutron in an atom.  All these had to have had a intelligent designer creator.  The particle had nothing to do with  the theory of evolution.  So where did it all come from if not from a Creator we call God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Well, I did a little research on your creation.com sources, and found this which thoroughly REFUTES them:

Assessing Limits to Evolution and to Natural Selection: Reviews of Michael Behe’s “Edge of Evolution” and John Sanford’s “Genetic Entropy”

I will read that BEFORE I watch your video which you have not even summarized.

 

As I explained I do not have the knowledge of biology to dig that deep into the subject your link goes into.  I can only discuss this from a more general point of view.

This video explains why humans and apes did not come from the same ancestor as evolutionist have long claimed.  Evolutionists have claimed for ages that 98.5% of human and ape DNA are the same.   

Recent scientific research has found that their DNA are not the same at all and could not have come from the same ancestor as previously thought by evolutionists. 

 

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Well, I did a little research on your creation.com sources, and found this which thoroughly REFUTES them:

Assessing Limits to Evolution and to Natural Selection: Reviews of Michael Behe’s “Edge of Evolution” and John Sanford’s “Genetic Entropy”

I will read that BEFORE I watch your video which you have not even summarized.

 

If you will pardon the coarseness of the term, there is an old military term that says bullshit baffles brains.

Unfortunately, that is what many articles do.  They delve into a subject with technical or scientific terms that almost nobody understands with the objective of winning a debate by scheer complexity in incomprehensible terms and arguments.  I am not going there.  There is another term which uses the abbreviation KISS.  You probably know that one.  Keep it simple stupid.   That makes more sense for a discussion with lay people like myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, blackbird said:

As I explained I do not have the knowledge of biology to dig that deep into the subject your link goes into.  I can only discuss this from a more general point of view.

This video explains why humans and apes did not come from the same ancestor as evolutionist have long claimed.  Evolutionists have claimed for ages that 98.5% of human and ape DNA are the same.   

Recent scientific research has found that their DNA are not the same at all and could not have come from the same ancestor as previously thought by evolutionists. 

 

Except for one thing, you own video cite says there is an 84.38% exact match of nucleotides.

So your bolded statement is NOT TRUE.

Any exact match strongly indicates common ancestry, cause coincident common evolution is relatively much more improbable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

If you will pardon the coarseness of the term, there is an old military term that says bullshit baffles brains.

Unfortunately, that is what many articles do.  They delve into a subject with technical or scientific terms that almost nobody understands with the objective of winning a debate by scheer complexity in incomprehensible terms and arguments.  I am not going there.  There is another term which uses the abbreviation KISS.  You probably know that one.  Keep it simple stupid.   That makes more sense for a discussion with lay people like myself.

So you argument boils down to, because you can't understand the reasons given why Sanford's thesis is erroneous, you're just going to believe him ON FAITH, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

So you argument boils down to, because you can't understand the reasons given why Sanford's thesis is erroneous, you're just going to believe him ON FAITH, right?

No, I only watched the Sanford video today, but I have believed in creation for decades because that is what the Bible says and makes sense to me.   You need to learn why and how the Scriptures came from God. 

Twenty years ago I also watched video and recorded it from Professor Philip Stott who gave four or five evenings of a slide show presentation and talk on the topic of evolution.  He was very knowledgeable.  He was a professor of mathematics from South Africa, knew a lot about the science related to the subjects related to creation versus evolution, and I believe educated and from England.  But he spoke in various countries at conferences and speaking engagements on the subject and knows what he is talking about.  That was 20 years ago.  He was once an evolutionist himself but was converted to Christ around 1976 I think and totally changed his thinking.

Check the website:   Philip Stott: General Science: Table of Contents | Reformation International College (refcm.org)

Also, you mentioned the question of believing Sanford on faith.   No, I already explained there are many other reasons why I believe in creation and have for decades.   You posted an article countering Sanford and I explained I do not have the expertise or knowledge to go into that depth of biology to really know or comment on that.

 

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No, I only watched the Sanford video today, but I have believed in creation for decades because that is what the Bible says and makes sense to me.   You need to learn why and how the Scriptures came from God. 

Twenty years ago I also watched video and recorded it from Professor Philip Stott who gave four or five evenings of a slide show presentation and talk on the topic of evolution.  He was very knowledgeable.  He was a professor of mathematics from South Africa, knew a lot about the science related to the subjects related to creation versus evolution, and I believe educated and from England.  But he spoke in various countries at conferences and speaking engagements on the subject and knows what he is talking about.  That was 20 years ago.  He was once an evolutionist himself but was converted to Christ around 1976 I think and totally changed his thinking.

Check the website:   Philip Stott: General Science: Table of Contents | Reformation International College (refcm.org)

Also, you mentioned the question of believing Sanford on faith.   No, I already explained there are many other reasons why I believe in creation and have for decades.   You posted an article countering Sanford and I explained I do not have the expertise or knowledge to go into that depth of biology to really know or comment on that.

 

I understand you're admitting a lack of expertise, but unwilling to take the word of an expert who is backed by the vast majority of experts wrt evolution because it is counter to what you have "long believed."

And you are unwilling to acknowledge that the science "experts" employed by Creation Ministries International make a lot of errors as detailed in the rebuttal I cited.

Do you not know that CMI is very selective in the "experts" they employ; meaning that they have to be willing to believe what the Bible says, despite the FACT that the Bible was written LONG BEFORE what we KNOW about evolution TODAY.

The MEN who wrote the Bible knew shit about the processes that created man. Why are you so distrustful of modern science that you continue to believe MYTHS instead of empirical EVIDENCE?

Are you also unable to understand the REASONS I cited behind your belief in those MYTHS?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Except for one thing, you own video cite says there is an 84.38% exact match of nucleotides.

If you watch the rest of video they explain why this does not prove a common ancestry.  They explain that God created humans and animals with many similarities.  That is because there are characteristics that are good for both man and certain animals that are similar.  For example several creatures and humans both have five fingers.  This does not prove they evolved.  All it means is this is the way that God created those animals and humans.  It had nothing to do with evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I understand you're admitting a lack of expertise, but unwilling to take the word of an expert who is backed by the vast majority of experts wrt evolution because it is counter to what you have "long believed."

And you are unwilling to acknowledge that the science "experts" employed by Creation Ministries International make a lot of errors as detailed in the rebuttal I cited.

Do you not know that CMI is very selective in the "experts" they employ; meaning that they have to be willing to believe what the Bible says, despite the FACT that the Bible was written LONG BEFORE what we KNOW about evolution TODAY.

The MEN who wrote the Bible knew shit about the processes that created man. Why are you so distrustful of modern science that you continue to believe MYTHS instead of empirical EVIDENCE?

Are you also unable to understand the REASONS I cited behind your belief in those MYTHS?

 

I have already explained why I cannot debate something like what you posted as I have no expertise in biology.   You claim what they say is absolute truth and ignore the fact that they are biased in favour of evolution.  They start from the premise there is no God, that the Biblical account of creation cannot be true, and that only evolution could explain things.  That is a clear bias.  There is no way around that.

Secondly, the Bible is not a book on science, history, theology, but it is a book that God gave us to tell us what we have to know about man's problem (sin), the fall of man, and the solution and what the future will bring.  It is a supernatural book recording the supernatural dealings of God with man.  Since you know nothing at all about the Bible or where it came from, it is a bit rich for you to call it a myth.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I have already explained why I cannot debate something like what you posted as I have no expertise in biology. 

Yes, I stated that already.

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 You claim what they say is absolute truth and ignore the fact that they are biased in favour of evolution.

I didn't say anything about "absolute truth." I said it is backed by the vast majority of EXPERTS. And I mean real experts, not just someone that believes what an ancient book of myths says.

Why do you believe a book with no empirical evidence over empirical evidence that scientist gather TODAY?

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

  They start from the premise there is no God, that the Biblical account of creation cannot be true, and that only evolution could explain things.  That is a clear bias.  There is no way around that.

When you have 2 options, one of which is believing TODAY'S empirical evidence and other depends on ancient myths in a single book, empirical evidence is a much stronger case; NOT BIAS.

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Secondly, the Bible is not a book on science, history, theology,

Exactly. Any conclusions about those topics drawn from the Bible is crap.

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

but it is a book that God gave us to tell us what we have to know about man's problem (sin), the fall of man, and the solution and what the future will bring.  It is a supernatural book recording the supernatural dealings of God with man.  Since you know nothing at all about the Bible or where it came from, it is a bit rich for you to call it a myth.

Anything NOT backed by the latest empirical evidence is a myth. And the older it is, the more suspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

So you argument boils down to, because you can't understand the reasons given why Sanford's thesis is erroneous, you're just going to believe him ON FAITH, right?

There are countless articles on the subject and countless videos.  I am not saying every word or idea presented on this material is infallible or absolute truth because it came from fallible men.  Only the Bible is absolute truth because it came from God.

Here are some more sources of information:

Philip Stott: General Science: Table of Contents | Reformation International College (refcm.org)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, blackbird said:

If you watch the rest of video they explain why this does not prove a common ancestry.  They explain that God created humans and animals with many similarities.  That is because there are characteristics that are good for both man and certain animals that are similar.  For example several creatures and humans both have five fingers.  This does not prove they evolved.  All it means is this is the way that God created those animals and humans.  It had nothing to do with evolution.

You said "they are not the same AT ALL." They are 84% the same according to your cite.

There's obviously a reason you resorted to HYPERBOLE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

There are countless articles on the subject and countless videos.  I am not saying every word or idea presented on this material is infallible or absolute truth because it came from fallible men.  Only the Bible is absolute truth because it came from God.

Here are some more sources of information:

Philip Stott: General Science: Table of Contents | Reformation International College (refcm.org)

Only MEN said the Bible came from God. Men who claimed the authority of God in the form of their status to determine what "he said."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Anything NOT backed by the latest empirical evidence is a myth. And the older it is, the more suspect.

I have already said that evolution is not empirical science.  It is not supported by the scientific method, i.e. experiment and observation.  Much of evolution's claims have been debunked as false.  Recent science in the last number of years have proven many claims of evolutionists as false.  Creation.com articles and videos show that.  The video I gave a link for show the claims that man and apes came from a common ancestor have been shown to be incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

Only MEN said the Bible came from God. Men who claimed the authority of God in the form of their status to determine what "he said."

Again I must repeat, you have not studied the Bible.  God himself said in the Bible in over 2,000 places thus and thus.  He spoke to man or prophets directly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

I have already said that evolution is not empirical science.  It is not supported by the scientific method, i.e. experiment and observation.  Much of evolution's claims have been debunked as false.  Recent science in the last number of years have proven many claims of evolutionists as false.  Creation.com articles and videos show that.  The video I gave a link for show the claims that man and apes came from a common ancestor have been shown to be incorrect.

IF you'd read my cite, you'd know ^this is wrong. Experiments showing evolution are CITED there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, blackbird said:

Again I must repeat, you have not studied the Bible.  God himself said in the Bible in over 2,000 places thus and thus.  He spoke to man or prophets directly.

So said MEN. Men who may have been insane for all we know.

Hearing voices when others aren't present is something my nephew does. Diagnosed with Schizophrenia.

In ancient times, he coulda been a priest who heard God.

Point is, NOT empirical evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, robosmith said:

How would you know when you fail to read about it?

Go ahead and give us an example of proof of evolution.

You worship "science" as if is infallible when in fact there are many examples in history where "science" was later proven wrong.

Here is an article for you on the subject of science and explains why it is not infallible.

What is Science? | Scripture & Science | Reformation International College (refcm.org)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Proven wrong by more and better science.  That’s not a flaw, it’s a benefit of the scientific method. Scientists are always trying to prove each other incorrect. 

Exactly. Every biologist in the world would trade a limb to stumble upon something with greater explanatory power than evolution. Nobel prize, face on the mount Rushmore of our collective consciousness, elevating themselves to Darwin-like fame and turning Darwin into Lamarck.

Science isn't defending an article of faith, it's attacking it relentlessly until only the truth survives.

Which is where we're at with evolution today. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Again I must repeat, you have not studied the Bible.  God himself said in the Bible in over 2,000 places thus and thus.  He spoke to man or prophets directly.

Just like is claimed in every other faith. Seems pretty arbitrary to simply pick one when none of them have evidence. No substitute for indoctrinating the young until they can't exercise critical thinking. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,770
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Akalupenn
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...