Page 1009 of 1021 FirstFirst ... 9509909959999100710081009101010111019 ... LastLast
Results 10,081 to 10,090 of 10210

Thread: Evolution: The Grand Deception

  1. #10081

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShelbyGT View Post
    Sorry, but did you deal with a single issue facing you or was it more of the same, "I don't know, but you are wrong" garbage?
    So you don't care if we point out that all the listed statements from you, are simply fallacious. Your only concern is when we don't answer them? That is intellectually dishonest and ignorant. For example, "beginning of a material universe must begin outside of the material realm". How do you know this(no one but God knows this)? What is your evidence for this claim? What about, "Energy creating energy is not a contradiction.", "God would have eternal energy". It IS a contradiction since energy(a property) can be neither created or destroyed. And how do you know the type of energy a God would have? Are you a God Shel? These statements are just more empty, faith-based factless assertions, that you hope if said enough times might actually be accepted as truth. Don

  2. #10082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Truly Enlightened View Post
    NOTHING IS ETERNAL SHELBY!

    Then your position is illogical, irrational and inconsistent.

    If nothing is eternal then nothing could exist.

    If nothing is eternal then something, everything, came from nothing.





    I can't think of anything, can You? For something to be eternal it must be timeless and exist outside of time itself.

    Yes, I can think of Someone who is eternal; God. The Bible states it clearly. Again, the Bible is consistent with logic and reason where you are inconsistent and illogical.



    Light in a vacuum will continue forever, but its properties do not exist outside of time. I don't know what ALL scientist say how the Universe began, let alone began from. My statement was that scientist don't believe that the Universe was created from nothing. Since you and others keep making this claim, I ask for you to present evidence that supports that claim. Of course that was ignored, like most of my post. Prove that God is Eternal! Prove that this eternal force exists! Prove that only your God can create a physical world with an ongoing time-line! Just more gap-filling assertions of your personal belief. Nothing more!

    Then why did you make the claim that: "No scientist believes that the Universe was created from nothing"?

    So which is it; either there IS something or Someone eternal OR the universe WAS created from nothing?


    So are we clear? Nothing is eternal, and science doesn't know absolutely how our particular Universe was initially created from. It is in these gaps of uncertainty, that all creationist interject their position as an absolute certainty. Oh wait, isn't that just another fallacy? I'm still waiting on any evidence. At this point, I will even settle for anything that is logically consistent. Don

    Yep, I'm waiting for something from you that is logically consistent. You are a bundle of contradictions!
    Truth is like a lion, it does not need to be defended, simply let it loose.

  3. #10083

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Truly Enlightened View Post
    So you don't care if we point out that all the listed statements from you, are simply fallacious. Your only concern is when we don't answer them? That is intellectually dishonest and ignorant. For example, "beginning of a material universe must begin outside of the material realm". How do you know this(no one but God knows this)? What is your evidence for this claim? What about, "Energy creating energy is not a contradiction.", "God would have eternal energy". It IS a contradiction since energy(a property) can be neither created or destroyed. And how do you know the type of energy a God would have? Are you a God Shel? These statements are just more empty, faith-based factless assertions, that you hope if said enough times might actually be accepted as truth. Don


    My knowledge is based on the revealed Word of God. It is therefore, reliable, trustworthy and true. It is internally consistent and logical. You are correct that only God would know, and now you can see how I know what only God could reveal.

    Why are are you running from my questions like the plague? Where is Max? I know these are hard questions for you all to answer but it's time to face the truth.
    Truth is like a lion, it does not need to be defended, simply let it loose.

  4. #10084

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShelbyGT View Post
    Then your position is illogical, irrational and inconsistent.

    If nothing is eternal then nothing could exist.

    If nothing is eternal then something, everything, came from nothing.








    Yes, I can think of Someone who is eternal; God. The Bible states it clearly. Again, the Bible is consistent with logic and reason where you are inconsistent and illogical.






    Then why did you make the claim that: "No scientist believes that the Universe was created from nothing"?

    So which is it; either there IS something or Someone eternal OR the universe WAS created from nothing?





    Yep, I'm waiting for something from you that is logically consistent. You are a bundle of contradictions!
    Shelby it is better that you let the first string take over, because your logic is pathetic and irrational. "If nothing is eternal then nothing could exist". Really, does this even sound rational to you? That would mean that only things that exist are eternal, to be consistent. Clearly that is not true. Can you see the problem there? I made the claim because you claimed to know that all scientist believe that the Universe came from nothing. I simply asked you to present any physical science scientist, stating that he believes that the Universe came from nothing. Shouldn't be too hard since you claim to know all scientists. You still haven't produced any evidence yet. So go back to Google U. and start pasting.

    I repeat, there is nothing that is eternal, or exist outside of space/time in our Universe. If you disagree, prove it with just an example? To answer your silly question, NEITHER! Nothing is eternal and the Universe was not created from nothing. Am I being consistent enough for you? Don

  5. #10085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShelbyGT View Post
    My knowledge is based on the revealed Word of God. It is therefore, reliable, trustworthy and true. It is internally consistent and logical. You are correct that only God would know, and now you can see how I know what only God could reveal.

    Why are are you running from my questions like the plague? Where is Max? I know these are hard questions for you all to answer but it's time to face the truth.
    ????????? Don

  6. #10086
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Massachusetts.
    Posts
    2,947

    Default

    FOR ALL EVOS HERE!

    I don't know if you heard the news. But they are thinking of cloning pigs to use for transplanting organs in humans! How does that jibe with chimps being our closest genetic relative? Shouldn't they use caesar from planet of the apes instead?

  7. #10087

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Truly Enlightened View Post
    Shelby it is better that you let the first string take over, because your logic is pathetic and irrational. "If nothing is eternal then nothing could exist". Really, does this even sound rational to you? That would mean that only things that exist are eternal, to be consistent. Clearly that is not true. Can you see the problem there? I made the claim because you claimed to know that all scientist believe that the Universe came from nothing. I simply asked you to present any physical science scientist, stating that he believes that the Universe came from nothing. Shouldn't be too hard since you claim to know all scientists. You still haven't produced any evidence yet. So go back to Google U. and start pasting.

    I repeat, there is nothing that is eternal, or exist outside of space/time in our Universe. If you disagree, prove it with just an example? To answer your silly question, NEITHER! Nothing is eternal and the Universe was not created from nothing. Am I being consistent enough for you? Don


    Well, we can add delusional to the list of illogical, irrational and inconsistent.

    Yes, if nothing is eternal then nothing could exist. Can you not understand the logic?

    If there was ever a time when nothing existed and there was no eternal Being, then nothing could ever exist. Unless of course, you believe that something can come from nothing. You know, something can exist and not exist in the same relationship at the same time. That is what you are advocating for, in case you don't realize it, apparently you may not.

    It was not I that made a claim to know what ALL scientists knew, that was you in case you forgot.


    "That would mean that only things that exist are eternal, to be consistent."

    No, that does not even follow logically. An eternal God can create the material universe. In other words, if an eternal God exists then there can be a material world, but if there is no eternal God or material universe then nothing could ever exist.

    The rest of your post just veers off from reality.
    Truth is like a lion, it does not need to be defended, simply let it loose.

  8. #10088
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Massachusetts.
    Posts
    2,947

    Default

    Fossil Plants Contain Original Molecules
    by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
    Evidence for Creation › Evidence from Science › Evidence from the Life Sciences › Biological Clocks Indicate Recent Creation › Original Biochemistry Shows That Fossils Are Recent

    Researchers shined a laser light on fossil leaves and found some surprising results. Instead of mere impressions of leaves, the fossils turned out to contain original molecules—persisting after millions of supposed years.

    Research led by Lund University in Sweden used FTIR to find original molecular bonds still intact inside fossilized leaf wax. The technique detects stretches in specific chemical bonds.

    Then the team compared the waxy cuticle that somehow persists in leaf fossils with the same cuticle molecules found in their living counterparts. Many of the scan results showed a match, even after all the years those fossils remained underground. The team published their results in Nature: Ecology & Evolution.1

    They scanned leaves from living Araucaria trees—tropical conifers that today grow in New Guinea, Australia, and Argentina—and from fossil Araucaria leaves locked in Cretaceous stone. Only the living leaves had FTIR signatures indicating complex sugars like cellulose, but surprisingly the technique revealed the same alkanes, alkenes, and carbon-based ring structures in both living and fossil Araucaria.

    Alkenes have double bonds. These tense bonds react more readily with other chemicals than many single bonds. They have not yet reached what chemists call thermodynamic stability—when they lose their potential to react. How can so much chemical potential persist in leaf molecules that are supposedly millions of years old?

    Lund University News wrote, “The [waxy] membrane has been preserved in the fossil leaves, some of which are 200 million-years-old.”2 This age assignment clearly conflicts with short-lived original plant chemical bonds.

    The second surprising result came from scan results between several fundamentally different kinds of plants. They found that specific chemical bond signatures signified the same basic plant kinds. For example, fossil and modern Araucaria had unique chemicals not shared with ginkgos. Lead author Vivi Vajda told Lund University,

    The results from the fossil leaves far exceeded our expectations, not only were they full of organic molecules, they also grouped according to well-established botanical relationships, based on DNA analysis of living plants i.e. Ginkgoes in one group, conifers in another.

    So they didn’t expect to find original organic molecules after supposed millions of years, nor did they expect to find those same molecules in similar plant kinds. It was as though millions of years of evolution never changed these plants’ basic forms or even their basic molecules.

    Could ginkgos remain ginkgos and Araucaria remain Araucaria because they have been reproducing faithfully within separately created kinds from the beginning of creation?

    The original biomolecules in fossil leaf cuticles point to their deposition thousands of years ago, not millions. Also, biochemical similarities between ancient and modern plants of similar groups show no hint of evolution, but fit just fine with the created kinds of Genesis 1:12.3

  9. #10089

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShelbyGT View Post
    Well, we can add delusional to the list of illogical, irrational and inconsistent.

    Yes, if nothing is eternal then nothing could exist. Can you not understand the logic?

    If there was ever a time when nothing existed and there was no eternal Being, then nothing could ever exist. Unless of course, you believe that something can come from nothing. You know, something can exist and not exist in the same relationship at the same time. That is what you are advocating for, in case you don't realize it, apparently you may not.

    It was not I that made a claim to know what ALL scientists knew, that was you in case you forgot.


    "That would mean that only things that exist are eternal, to be consistent."

    No, that does not even follow logically. An eternal God can create the material universe. In other words, if an eternal God exists then there can be a material world, but if there is no eternal God or material universe then nothing could ever exist.

    The rest of your post just veers off from reality.
    Shel, do you believe that all physical things that exist in our reality are eternal or not? Also do you mean "nothing" as being the absence of something? If you mean nothing in this sense, then it also does not exist, therefore also is not eternal. I took your meaning of nothing to mean the generic "no thing", not the absence of "all things". So which meaning of nothing did you mean? And since you are still in denial, are you now claiming that scientist DON'T believe that the Universe came from nothing(absence of all things)? Also, other than simply asserting it, can you give me an example of something that can exist and not-exist at the same time? Also, an example of what "nothing"(absence of all-things) is? You can't because neither exist, except as part of your twisted logic.

    You believe that a magical, immaterial and ethereal genie created all life and the Universe. I believe in the consistency and dependability of a material world, that I have learned to depend on for my survival. And you call me delusional? We were talking about science here Shel, NOT YOUR BELIEF. You are suppose to provide evidence that the ToE is a deception, or that creationism is scientifically valid. You can't simply recite Biblical passages, present fallacy-riddled arguments, threaten us with eternal damnation, or simply create confusion and doubt with your cut copy and pastes. You must actually present evidence, not excuses, denials, distractions, and insults. Can you do any of these things Shel. If not, let the first string take over please? This is becoming embarrassing for the both of us. Keep your beliefs where they belong--IN YOUR HEAD!

    It has always amazed me how an ancient man-written, man-made, man-compiled book of stories and superstitions, written for peasants and sheep/goat herders, could make grown men and women think like children do. Just imagine the entire free world thinking just like you. Imagine how many religious wars between the different religions would occur. I would hate to be a women under canon law, Islamic sharia, Jewish halakha, and Hindu laws. All are repressive and absolute in their ethical and moral teachings. Of course they all can't be right, and will lead to more religious discrimination and separatism. But maybe another time for this topic.

    Not only are you avoiding my questions Shel, but now you are even avoiding my answers as well. What's a bloke got to do to get your attention? Don

  10. #10090

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShelbyGT View Post
    My knowledge is based on the revealed Word of God. It is therefore, reliable, trustworthy and true. It is internally consistent and logical. You are correct that only God would know, and now you can see how I know what only God could reveal.

    Why are are you running from my questions like the plague? Where is Max? I know these are hard questions for you all to answer but it's time to face the truth.
    How do you know any of this for certain, Shel? How do you know that you are not being tricked by a malevolent being? Why would a metaphysical genie care about our 4 dimensional lives? Are you interested in the lives of the ants beneath your feet? If you want to believe that belief itself is reality, go for it. If you want to believe that only you have access to knowledge that is denied to me, I don't care. Yours is the world where logic must be abandoned for faith to reigns supreme. Yours is the world where anything is possible, and everything can be explained. Yours is a world where evidence and falsifiability are irrelevant and unnecessary. Finally, yours is a world that exist only in your mind, and not in reality. I'm afraid your exclusive club is based on mind over matter, but unlike you my mind actually matters to me.

    I am not my brother's keeper, and your question are not hard, they are fallacious and dishonest. Would you like examples? Is this it Shel? Is your only evidence based on faith and Biblical quotes? Please say it ain't so! Don

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •