Denying Reality

KingJ · Feb 25, 2014

River Jordan said:
Of course, and that's exactly what we have....observable evidence.

Where?

Using evolution algorithms to help understand mutation

= debunked. You have anything more recent then your 2005 link?
Mutation is uphill evolution

? = debunked
The tiktaalik? = on par with suggesting a monkey is the bridge between us and squirrels :lol: = debunked.
Darwins birds? = no observable evolution just many different birds = debunked.

Bring me something concrete please.

River Jordan said:
Gravity was a theory? For the love of.....

Gravitational Theories

You harp on evolution = theory and swallow a camel ....of evolution not being on par at all...even more so if gravity is seen as a theory :lol:. Sad.

Gravity being law or theory is still much debated. But I don't want to get into that...it is a red herring. I will just quote your esteemed Bill Nye...

Nye tore off his bow-tie and began chewing on it in frustration. “The law of gravity says,” Nye replied, “that ‘any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.’

We actually know a lot more about how evolution works than gravity. But don't let little things like reality get in your way.

Really? Prove it. I will drop a brick on your head to prove gravity. What will you do to prove evolution? Just please don't jump off a building and believe it will effect your baby!

Mr.Bride · Feb 25, 2014

aspen said:
lol, nice

bride, why do we have to have a truth with no doubt? our doubt doesnt diminish Absolute truth. some of Gods best friends on Earth experienced doubt.

Key word: experienced...We all deal with that at one point or another but we have to learn to cast it away like the rest of them devils that try to hinder. Absolute is absolute. No doubt. The devil may talk but you not listening anymore. There's a song that says "You can't make me doubt Him cause I know to much about Him"

River Jordan · Feb 25, 2014

So KingJ, rather than playing the usual game you and I have played before where you demand something from science, I provide it, and you just wave it away showing that you were never going to accept any answer I gave anyways (and weren't making your demand in good faith)....

Why don't you tell me what scientific data you believe is lacking in evolutionary biology, to the point that it is a failed science? Also, if you could, tell me how you came to realize this data was lacking....did you study all the journals and realize "Why, there's no X here!"?

Also, if you could, please explain what the existence of such data (if it were produced) would mean to your faith in Christ.

Mr.Bride · Feb 25, 2014

River Jordan,

What do you want us to do with the creation account? What's your point in these discussions if not to change minds/create doubt?

justaname · Feb 25, 2014

KingJ said:
Where?

Using evolution algorithms to help understand mutation = debunked. You have anything more recent then your 2005 link?
Mutation is uphill evolution ? = debunked
The tiktaalik? = on par with suggesting a monkey is the bridge between us and squirrels :lol: = debunked.
Darwins birds? = no observable evolution just many different birds = debunked.

Bring me something concrete please.

You harp on evolution = theory and swallow a camel ....of evolution not being on par at all...even more so if gravity is seen as a theory :lol:. Sad.

Gravity being law or theory is still much debated. But I don't want to get into that...it is a red herring. I will just quote your esteemed Bill Nye...

Nye tore off his bow-tie and began chewing on it in frustration. “The law of gravity says,” Nye replied, “that ‘any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.’

Really? Prove it. I will drop a brick on your head to prove gravity. What will you do to prove evolution? Just please don't jump off a building and believe it will effect your baby!

I simply don't see the evidence of cross species mutation in any fossil record. When looking at the observable data for example, a bat has always had wings. It is faith on the scientists part that they will find a bat with no wings. The scientific data is more consistent with the biblical record, each after its own kind.

Earnst Haeckel's evolution embryo is a fraud. Piltdownman was a fraud. Java man is false. Neanderthal man is a hoax. Lucy is most likely an extinct ape. I could go on, but maybe you should research these first. So the case I make here is all these frauds were the supporting case for human evolution. There no longer is simply a missing link, the whole chain is gone!

Then when looking at the philosophical evidence every being is possessing information, information comes from an intelligence or a person. Information does not come from anything else. This makes the case for a designer.

We also have no origin of life. The primordial soup idea is weak at best and has never been "observed" or duplicated. Then to say life on earth started from a meteor is only pushing back first cause and is no solution at all.

With every case of scientific data, interpretation of the data is involved. One scientist might read the data and draw certain conclusions based on their worldview, another may draw similar but different conclusions. Again we need not agree with every conclusion drawn from all scientific data, sometimes they are flat out wrong.

The Biblical account is the word of God. Need I say more?

River Jordan · Feb 25, 2014

Mr.Bride said:
River Jordan,

What do you want us to do with the creation account? What's your point in these discussions if not to change minds/create doubt?

I've explained that to you. Read the post carefully.

I simply don't see the evidence of cross species mutation in any fossil record.

Where have you looked? Please be specific.

The scientific data is more consistent with the biblical record, each after its own kind.

What exactly is a "kind"?

Earnst Haeckel's evolution embryo is a fraud. Piltdownman was a fraud. Java man is false. Neanderthal man is a hoax. Lucy is most likely an extinct ape. I could go on, but maybe you should research these first. So the case I make here is all these frauds were the supporting case for human evolution. There no longer is simply a missing link, the whole chain is gone!

So from where I sit, you seem to have read a bit from creationist sources. Have you read anything from the science side on those issues? If so, what (and again, be specific)?

Then when looking at the philosophical evidence every being is possessing information, information comes from an intelligence or a person. Information does not come from anything else. This makes the case for a designer.

How are you defining "information" and what metric are you using to measure it?

The Biblical account is the word of God. Need I say more?

Well apparently you do. The entire first part of your post was about science rather than scripture. But if your position is first and foremost "The Biblical account is the word of God", why are you focusing so much on science?

Elizabeth · Feb 25, 2014

aspen said:
Therefore, i enjoy fantasy...

Yes, you certainly do. People who relish fantasy have no taste for the truth.

justaname · Feb 25, 2014

River Jordan said:
I've explained that to you. Read the post carefully.

Where have you looked? Please be specific.

What exactly is a "kind"?

So from where I sit, you seem to have read a bit from creationist sources. Have you read anything from the science side on those issues? If so, what (and again, be specific)?

How are you defining "information" and what metric are you using to measure it?

Well apparently you do. The entire first part of your post was about science rather than scripture. But if your position is first and foremost "The Biblical account is the word of God", why are you focusing so much on science?

I was specific about the fossil record. Perhaps if you have different information about this you could disclose it?

The definition of the word "kind" is not in question. If you want a Hebraic word study we could go through this, but I really don't have the time. Maybe you could take the time and do the study yourself?

I have read both sides of the coin. I was educated in American public schooling where we were forced into the Darwinian theory. I could continue, but my education is irrelevant here. You seem to be making a case against my authority, not for your position. You are the one supporting evolution, thereby the burden of proof is yours.

As far as "information" is concerned, if you are having difficulties comprehending this simple term, perhaps this dialogue is doomed from the start.

The entire first part of my post was a direct response to your questions. I am not attempting to make a case for the biblical record, disclosing what I did is my personal liberty. I am disagreeing with the Darwinian theory. My post supported some of the reasons for my disbelief.

Still waiting on the alleged falsehoods presented by Stein.

River Jordan · Feb 25, 2014

justaname,

You stated, "I simply don't see the evidence of cross species mutation in any fossil record". Isn't it reasonable to ask "Where have you looked"?

For example, in your looking did you ever come across anything like this?

EVOLUTION AT SEA
COMPLETE FOSSIL RECORD FROM THE OCEAN UPHOLDS DARWIN'S GRADUALISM THEORIES

"As he speaks, Arnold shows a series of microphotographs, depicting the evolutionary change wrought on a single foram species. "This is the same organism, as it existed through 500,000 years," he says. "We've got hundreds of examples like this, complete life and evolutionary histories for dozens of species.""

And yes, the definition of "kind" is in question. So please, what does "kind" mean?

Can you please explain how "Java Man is false"?

Further, if you're going to make arguments about "information" then you do need to define it and explain how you're measuring it. Otherwise you're just engaging in empty rhetoric.

I am not attempting to make a case for the biblical record, disclosing what I did is my personal liberty. I am disagreeing with the Darwinian theory. My post supported some of the reasons for my disbelief.

Do you disagree with evolutionary biology because of how you read scripture, or because you have studied the science and found it lacking?

Ok.,..on to the creationist movie "Expelled"....

One of the claims made in the movie was that Caroline Crocker, after mentioning intelligent design in a cell biology class at GMU, was told she had to be disciplined and was fired for her actions.

However, the facts indicate otherwise. First, Crocker held a non-tenure contract position. Despite student complaints about her instruction, she finished teaching the course and completed her contract. After her contract was up, it wasn't renewed (which is common in academia). But Expelled also claims she was "blacklisted" and she couldn't find a job because of it. However, after her contract at GMU was up, she kept teaching at Northern Virginia Community College, then in 2006 she began a postdoc at Uniformed Services University, where she continued to teach molecular biology.

So why do you think Stein didn't mention any of that? Do you think including the above info would have altered the reception of their argument that she had been blacklisted?

justaname · Feb 25, 2014

Here ya go about Java man:

Probably the most important single issue involved was whether or not the three fragments were from the same individual. THIS WAS ASSUMED by some. The whole argument as to whether a "missing link" had been found rests upon this assumption. The way in which it was concluded that the "Java Man" was a missing link is: (1) It was deduced that he walked upright because of the nature of the femur (thighbone). (2) It was assumed that he was below the human level of intelligence because of the small size of the cranial capacity. (3) It is further assumed that evolution always works upwards. Thus, since an ape has neither upright posture nor a large cranial capacity, a creature which walked upright with a larger cranial capacity than an ape but smaller than a human JUST HAS TO BE A STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THEM. But not a single one of these points is proven. They are assumed! In the remains which were discovered, not one factor was present which would enable a criminal investigator to determine whether or not fragments of a body are from the same individual. In fact the skull cap had a matrix of material as hard as rock imbedded in it.
Some writers claimed the remains showed no evidence of water erosion. Others claimed they did. Some claimed the remains showed identical or similar wear, while others claimed part of them showed water erosion and others did not.

http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume2/TM002021.htm

I would like to say interesting read on the fossil record. I will look into that further before I formulate an opinion.

Again with the word "kind" you would need to do your own word study.

As far as "information" is concerned the measure is human conscience observance, the very method science uses to measure anything. As soon as science comes up with a way to measure the human conscience, I will get back with ya. Until then you will just have to "believe" it exists.

As for Stein, again I will need to background check that information. Yet thanks for the information...wait...you don't know what information means...

River Jordan · Feb 25, 2014

justaname said:
Here ya go about Java man:
Probably the most important single issue involved was whether or not the three fragments were from the same individual. THIS WAS ASSUMED by some.

No, actually regarding the original finds by Dubois, there is still debate over whether they are all from the same individual

The whole argument as to whether a "missing link" had been found rests upon this assumption.

Um...no, not at all. In fact, a second more complete skeleton was found in nearby Sangiran in 1937, and many subsequent finds have been discovered there. So much so that it's now a UNESCO World Heritage Site. All the finds are consistent with the classification of Java Man as a member of H. erectus.

So why do you think your source didn't tell you that information?

The way in which it was concluded that the "Java Man" was a missing link is: (1) It was deduced that he walked upright because of the nature of the femur (thighbone). (2) It was assumed that he was below the human level of intelligence because of the small size of the cranial capacity. (3) It is further assumed that evolution always works upwards.

So is H. erectus an ape or a human from the creationist perspective? Please explain the criteria for whatever group you put them in. Further, the website's claim that "it is assumed that evolution always works upward" is....well, laughably ignorant and false. Let me give you a good example....the evolution of parasites. Many parasites show signs of having once been non-parasitic, but as they evolved into parasites lost many of their structures and functions (they didn't need them because they relied on their host).

If you disagree, please cite a scientific source arguing that "evolution always works upwards".

But not a single one of these points is proven. They are assumed!

First, the above is simply a display of fundamental ignorance of science. Science does not "prove" things. Science is about collecting evidence and trying to figure out what that evidence means. Second, notice the false dilemma here? It's either "proved" or it's merely "assumed". IOW, scientists either prove things or they're just guessing.

Is that really how you think science works?

Finally, notice that whoever wrote this ridiculous website doesn't actually cite any of the literature where it describes how the authors make a case for Java Man being upright or transitional? Why do you think he didn't do that?

Again with the word "kind" you would need to do your own word study.

Until you offer a definition for the term, it is meaningless. So whatever arguments you have that center on a meaningless term are themselves, without basis.

As far as "information" is concerned the measure is human conscience observance, the very method science uses to measure anything. As soon as science comes up with a way to measure the human conscience, I will get back with ya. Until then you will just have to "believe" it exists.

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. If all you're doing is hitting the God of the Gaps argument, then well.....ok.

justaname · Feb 25, 2014

River Jordan said:
No, actually regarding the original finds by Dubois, there is still debate over whether they are all from the same individual

Um...no, not at all. In fact, a second more complete skeleton was found in nearby Sangiran in 1937, and many subsequent finds have been discovered there. So much so that it's now a UNESCO World Heritage Site. All the finds are consistent with the classification of Java Man as a member of H. erectus.

So why do you think your source didn't tell you that information?

So is H. erectus an ape or a human from the creationist perspective? Please explain the criteria for whatever group you put them in. Further, the website's claim that "it is assumed that evolution always works upward" is....well, laughably ignorant and false. Let me give you a good example....the evolution of parasites. Many parasites show signs of having once been non-parasitic, but as they evolved into parasites lost many of their structures and functions (they didn't need them because they relied on their host).

If you disagree, please cite a scientific source arguing that "evolution always works upwards".

First, the above is simply a display of fundamental ignorance of science. Science does not "prove" things. Science is about collecting evidence and trying to figure out what that evidence means. Second, notice the false dilemma here? It's either "proved" or it's merely "assumed". IOW, scientists either prove things or they're just guessing.

Is that really how you think science works?

Finally, notice that whoever wrote this ridiculous website doesn't actually cite any of the literature where it describes how the authors make a case for Java Man being upright or transitional? Why do you think he didn't do that?

Until you offer a definition for the term, it is meaningless. So whatever arguments you have that center on a meaningless term are themselves, without basis.

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. If all you're doing is hitting the God of the Gaps argument, then well.....ok.

Your argument agrees with the point made on the website, even though you say no.

Your second argument switches subjects. The subject is about the Java man.

As far as the evolution moving upwards, I am uncertain you are gathering what the author is attempting to convey.

Interesting the claim of undefined terms and meaninglessness. All these terms are defined, if you choose not to look up the term that is your choice. It is not my job to define words that are already defined. Simply because I don't want to do your requested leg work, does not invalidate the meaning of language.

God of the Gaps argument? Really? Did you actually read the post? It was about the human conscience being the measure of information. The human conscience or mind is something you are using at this very moment if it is you are actually reading this post. Why don't you go ahead and measure it?

KingJ · Feb 26, 2014

River Jordan said:
So KingJ, rather than playing the usual game you and I have played before where you demand something from science, I provide it, and you just wave it away showing that you were never going to accept any answer I gave anyways (and weren't making your demand in good faith)....

Why don't you tell me what scientific data you believe is lacking in evolutionary biology, to the point that it is a failed science? Also, if you could, tell me how you came to realize this data was lacking....did you study all the journals and realize "Why, there's no X here!"?

Also, if you could, please explain what the existence of such data (if it were produced) would mean to your faith in Christ.

River I know you want me to be fooled but I am simply not that easy to fool. Giving me evidence that uses big words, goes microscopic or took place millions of years ago...does not blur reality for me. Evolution does not exist at all in our day. Evolution does not exist millions of years ago. Evolution does not exist in microscopic particles. Moving the goal posts only fools fools.

Now, the evidence I want is exactly what evolution claims.

1. Show me the devolution / evolution of my tail / wings / gills / toes / teeth...anything that will enable me to devour those in / survive my surroundings.

Consider this: 1. Take the flatworm, 550 million years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution). 2. Acknowledge that humans are unchanged for the last 2000 (evolution says 30k) years minimum. now 3. take 550 000 000 / 2 000 and 30k = 275 000 and 18 333.

Show me 1/18 333 or 1/275 000 scale evolution.... on par with the variances between me and a flatworm...taking place right now.

2. Show me how evolution explains the trillions x close to infinity amounts of missing links.

Consider this: Getting the winning 6 numbers of the lotto when we have 1-49 numbers has odds of 1/14 000 000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lottery_mathematics.

Now, how many particles came from the big bang? Whether 1 became 10, 10 became 100 onto trillions or 1 became trillions, fact is trillions of particles is our range to select winning numbers from. But lets use simply 1 million.

So let's take a working cell like the Flagello motor. How many particles / parts would you say are needed for the paddle, rudder and motor? Lets say 5 each. So we are looking for 15 winning numbers in a range of 1 million. The odds of that are 1/ 764 636 081 790 093 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000.

Now, simply because you say you believe in theistic evolution, does not mean the odds of a new part evolving change.

Now let's move on to species...where the odds multiply even further. If we had 1 000 particles to work from and wanted simply 15 winning particles to make something...the odds are 1/677 818 915 529 483 000 000 000 000 000 000. Now in a species we have differing winning combinations of numbers joined. Basically that big number above now becomes the 'n' in the formulae. Not to say all will be species but the possibilities of new species becomes a number beyond 'excels ability' to calculate. Where are all the missing species?

Arnie Manitoba · Feb 26, 2014

River Jordan said:
Wow. You still don't understand what "theory" means in science. There's just nothing more to be said to you on this.

Theory is a system of ideas intended to explain something, such as a single or collection of fact(s), event(s), or phenomen(a)(on). Typically, a theory is developed through the use of contemplative and rational forms of abstract and generalized thinking. Furthermore, a theory is often based on general principles that are independent of the thing being explained. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings. A theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature—that is, they seek to supply strong evidence for but not absolute proof of the truth of the conclusion—and they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings, leading to a more accurate theory. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).

River Jordan · Feb 26, 2014

justaname said:
Your argument agrees with the point made on the website, even though you say no.

Your second argument switches subjects. The subject is about the Java man.

As far as the evolution moving upwards, I am uncertain you are gathering what the author is attempting to convey.

Again, the website you linked to tries to argue that "Java Man", which is a H. erectus specimen, status as a "missing link" (which is a stupid term in itself) "rests on the assumption" that the remains were from a single individual. As I pointed out, later more complete finds of H. erectus specimens in the area confirmed that Java Man is indeed a H. erectus and that it is a transitional in the hominid evolutionary tree.

IOW, the claim that this conclusion rests on the assumption of the Java Man remains being from a single organism is completely wrong.

Also, the website claims that Java Man's status as a "missing link" was based on the assumption that "evolution always works upwards". As I pointed out, that's not an assumption in evolutionary biology at all. Thus, the website's unsubstantiated claim is false.

Interesting the claim of undefined terms and meaninglessness. All these terms are defined, if you choose not to look up the term that is your choice. It is not my job to define words that are already defined. Simply because I don't want to do your requested leg work, does not invalidate the meaning of language.

I've looked a lot at how creationists try and define "kind". No one has ever given a workable definition AFAIK. In that context, if you also fail to define the term, then it is meaningless.

Like others here, you're putting far more effort into explaining why you don't have to answer the question that it would take to just.....answer the question.

God of the Gaps argument? Really? Did you actually read the post? It was about the human conscience being the measure of information. The human conscience or mind is something you are using at this very moment if it is you are actually reading this post. Why don't you go ahead and measure it?

Ok...thanks.

KingJ said:
River I know you want me to be fooled but I am simply not that easy to fool. Giving me evidence that uses big words, goes microscopic or took place millions of years ago...does not blur reality for me.

Oh noes!!! Big words!!

Who ever would have guessed that a scientific subject would involve big words?

Evolution does not exist at all in our day. Evolution does not exist millions of years ago. Evolution does not exist in microscopic particles. Moving the goal posts only fools fools.

Thank you. You are perfectly demonstrating exactly my entire point here.

It's this level of denialism being tied to Christianity that makes our faith look so ridiculous to much of the world. IMO, what you wrote above is equivalent to geocentrism on the absurdity scale.

So is that what you tell kids in your church? If so, what do you tell them if any of them become aware of what I posted HERE?

Now, the evidence I want is exactly what evolution claims.

1. Show me the devolution / evolution of my tail / wings / gills / toes / teeth...anything that will enable me to devour those in / survive my surroundings.

Consider this: 1. Take the flatworm, 550 million years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution). 2. Acknowledge that humans are unchanged for the last 2000 (evolution says 30k) years minimum. now 3. take 550 000 000 / 2 000 and 30k = 275 000 and 18 333.

Show me 1/18 333 or 1/275 000 scale evolution.... on par with the variances between me and a flatworm...taking place right now.

First of all, your math doesn't make sense....at all. But if you're looking for the observed evolution of new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species, go to the post linked to above. All of that's been documented multiple times by different people.

2. Show me how evolution explains the trillions x close to infinity amounts of missing links.

Consider this: Getting the winning 6 numbers of the lotto when we have 1-49 numbers has odds of 1/14 000 000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lottery_mathematics.

Now, how many particles came from the big bang? Whether 1 became 10, 10 became 100 onto trillions or 1 became trillions, fact is trillions of particles is our range to select winning numbers from. But lets use simply 1 million.

So let's take a working cell like the Flagello motor. How many particles / parts would you say are needed for the paddle, rudder and motor? Lets say 5 each. So we are looking for 15 winning numbers in a range of 1 million. The odds of that are 1/ 764 636 081 790 093 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000.

Why are you assuming chemistry operates randomly?

Now let's move on to species...where the odds multiply even further. If we had 1 000 particles to work from and wanted simply 15 winning particles to make something...the odds are 1/677 818 915 529 483 000 000 000 000 000 000. Now in a species we have differing winning combinations of numbers joined. Basically that big number above now becomes the 'n' in the formulae. Not to say all will be species but the possibilities of new species becomes a number beyond 'excels ability' to calculate. Where are all the missing species?

Same question...why are you assuming molecules are like lottery balls in that they behave randomly?

Arnie,

You've shown that you can copy a proper definition....now we need to see if you can incorporate it into your posts.

KingJ · Feb 26, 2014

River Jordan said:
So is that what you tell kids in your church? If so, what do you tell them if any of them become aware of what I posted HERE?

Well in my church they are taught the truth. They have the Holy Spirit to help them see heresy and paganism so I don't normally have to tell them much.
How do you explain to your kids that that ape in the zoo is one-day going to evolve into you? :lol:

You are more then welcome to discuss any of those links. You not making a point just further showing your need for straws. I did find the title ''mathematical evidence'' interesting until I read it. I don't know how you ever have peace in your shaky belief. Do you also now believe we are traced to a single cell 3.5 billion years ago? Do I really need to explain the stupidity of that to you? Like I asked elsewhere...will you also jump on the belief in aliens when it comes?

I am done trying to convince you scripture is the truth and that you need to study it. What you need to do first is switch your brain on.

River Jordan said:
First of all, your math doesn't make sense....at all. But if you're looking for the observed evolution of new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species, go to the post linked to above. All of that's been documented multiple times by different people.

Same question...why are you assuming molecules are like lottery balls in that they behave randomly?

Those are simple sums. You really can't grasp their significance? I don't know how to make it simpler for you.

River Jordan · Feb 26, 2014

KingJ said:
Well in my church they are taught the truth. They have the Holy Spirit to help them see heresy and paganism so I don't normally have to tell them much.

Are they taught the sort of anti-science nonsense we see from you? Such as....

How do you explain to your kids that that ape in the zoo is one-day going to evolve into you?

You are more then welcome to discuss any of those links. You not making a point just further showing your need for straws.

Have you read any of them?

I did find the title ''mathematical evidence'' interesting until I read it. I don't know how you ever have peace in your shaky belief.

Do you have actual specific comments on the methods?

Do you also now believe we are traced to a single cell 3.5 billion years ago? Do I really need to explain the stupidity of that to you?

Yes, please explain in detail what specifically about those papers you find "stupid" (and make sure you actually read the papers first).

Like I asked elsewhere...will you also jump on the belief in aliens when it comes?

Will you ever grow up?

I am done trying to convince you scripture is the truth and that you need to study it.

No one is arguing that scripture isn't truth.

Those are simple sums. You really can't grasp their significance?

No, they don't make any sense at all. If you think otherwise, pitch them to another biologist and tell me what sort of reaction you get.

I don't know how to make it simpler for you.

That's not surprising.

KingJ · Feb 26, 2014

River Jordan said:
Will you ever grow up?

The irony.

No one is arguing that scripture isn't truth.

But you do.

No, they don't make any sense at all. If you think otherwise, pitch them to another biologist and tell me what sort of reaction you get.

I have posted similar before on atheist sites. They grasp the sums and acknowledge it is food for thought..they can't believe anything other then evolution though...so they just find ways to ignore / work around it....I expected you to do the same...but you didn't even grasp the math?><?

How many particles do you believe came into existence right after the big bang? or...if you believe 1 cell at 3.5 billion years...how many particles were in it able to ''mutate''? You don't get that the flatworm is 275k / 18k steps from us according to the math? debunk my math please!

You asked me for my questions and I gave you my top two..even gave you pointers from which to work from...all done in sincerity and honesty...will you still be dancing around them on your third reply since?

Just use some lateral thought. Give your links and degree a break for now.

River Jordan · Feb 27, 2014

KingJ said:
I have posted similar before on atheist sites. They grasp the sums and acknowledge it is food for thought..they can't believe anything other then evolution though...so they just find ways to ignore / work around it....I expected you to do the same...but you didn't even grasp the math?><?

Where'd you post it? I'd love to see what folks' reactions were.

How many particles do you believe came into existence right after the big bang? or...if you believe 1 cell at 3.5 billion years...how many particles were in it able to ''mutate''? You don't get that the flatworm is 275k / 18k steps from us according to the math? debunk my math please!

Oh my.....do you have any idea how ridiculous that reads? How many particles were able to mutate? I'd warn you that you're just embarrassing yourself, but I don't think you care.

You asked me for my questions and I gave you my top two..even gave you pointers from which to work from...all done in sincerity and honesty...will you still be dancing around them on your third reply since?

I do appreciate your answering my question. It has served to illustrate my point about how people like you who know almost nothing about science, in trying to argue against science accomplish only one thing....making Christianity look ridiculous.

Just use some lateral thought. Give your links and degree a break for now.

Yeah....who needs facts, education, and experience? Your "insights" are all humanity needs to establish truth!

Mr.Bride · Feb 27, 2014

"No one is arguing that scripture isn't truth."

And that was a lie. Was it not River Jordan? This is amazing. You'd think it was a sheep till you see the zipper.

Denying Reality

New Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Disciple of Jesus Christ

Well-Known Member

New Member

Disciple of Jesus Christ

Well-Known Member

Disciple of Jesus Christ

Well-Known Member

Disciple of Jesus Christ

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Similar threads