So what? Are you saying a lion and a tiger are the same species? Yes. Only specialised and adapted to different type of enviroment I would say more - they are all cats or felines or how ever you want to call all of those organism that can produce offsprings. That is what the Bible says as well. I know you can say OMG he is talking about the Bible again. Im just saying that it is in line with reality that the organisms that can bring forth from themselves life - are the same kind. And as long as reality is proven otherwise I have no reason to believe God has lied here. It is very much in line with reality. Ofcourse it is not the reason I believe creationism. I believe it is true because it is a reality. Just because God have said so just make it super awesome that its true. Ofcourse you can say you do not have to believe in science. Actually yes you do have to believe they play fair. I will talk about evolution soon but let me just point out some funny comments you just made. ''And as long as reality is proven otherwise I have no reason to believe God has lied here.'' You have no reason to believe he is right either, in fact you have no reason to believe god exists in the first place. ''I believe it is true because it is a reality. Just because God have said so just make it super awesome that its true.'' What can you even say about this, not much really. I'm just laughing a bit. |
|
|
|
As I said many many times you don't need to believe the video, you can check the ISS orbit or even the spacex car and follow them whenever you like with your own p900. Is just as easy as that. Also why don't you just take a boat or a plane and go around the flat earth like this : https://imgur.com/Af21BZD |
|
|
|
You dismiss the sources just because they are creationist when I told you their are creationist sources.........
Yes. I provided original scientific research, peer-reviewed, and published in reputable independent journals. I expect a similar quality of evidence in return. Incoherent ramblings from a completely biased creationist site do not qualify. I am now realising, having typed that, that maybe once again this is my mistake for assuming you understood what constitutes "evidence". So just say you dont wish to talk just read what is per-reviewed and what is not..... You fake wanting to talk. So no need to talk to you. Maybe it is peer-reviewed what you say but it probably not say what you say it think it says. This is peer-reviewed this is not. So much of a constructive debate.... And I thought you actually wanted to know the truth. You are just interested what is per-reviewed. So be it. 'Three species of wildflowers, dramatically called goatsbeards, were introduced from Europe to America in the early 1900s. After a few decades, their populations expanded and they began encroaching on one another’s turf. Whenever these mixed populations appeared, the species interbred (called hybridizing) and produced sterile hybrid offspring (like the mules produced from donkeys and horses). I have debunked your wildflower plants a long time ago. I will not repeat myself. If you had anything to add - find my debunking of you. Chichibichi and Chiuwawa and other nonsenses explained here: http://www.icr.org/article/cichlid-coloration-corroborates-creation/Guys.... Know the other side arguments because right now it seems like you are not into debate, and does not want to know the other side arguments. That is sad, because I know the other side - yours arguments that I showed not once, not twice, but many times. ''However, they also found that the bluish and reddish cichlids interbreed'' As I said in my original post ''While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.'' So you are wrong. They are indeed different species, it's proven, sorry. Also do you have any website that is not a bunch of religious fallacies? https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/090301_cichlidspeciationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cichlid#SpeciationCannot be convinced to mate? Yeah well... lion and tiger is not easily convinced to mate. What argument is that? They can make offspring. Does Jackal would want to mate the dog? Not likely. They would rather bite their heads off for eachother yet - they can make offsprings. About the website not religious. Im sorry no. I have non. The odds are against the truth in todays world so you have to be filled with Holy Spirit to even want the truth... So what? Are you saying a lion and a tiger are the same species? The point is that they are different species, that's the argument. Different species may naturally interbreed (called hybridization) but they are still different species. Saying that they also found that the bluish and reddish cichlids interbreed is saying nothing, that's not an argument against my evidence. |
|
|
|
You dismiss the sources just because they are creationist when I told you their are creationist sources.........
Yes. I provided original scientific research, peer-reviewed, and published in reputable independent journals. I expect a similar quality of evidence in return. Incoherent ramblings from a completely biased creationist site do not qualify. I am now realising, having typed that, that maybe once again this is my mistake for assuming you understood what constitutes "evidence". So just say you dont wish to talk just read what is per-reviewed and what is not..... You fake wanting to talk. So no need to talk to you. Maybe it is peer-reviewed what you say but it probably not say what you say it think it says. This is peer-reviewed this is not. So much of a constructive debate.... And I thought you actually wanted to know the truth. You are just interested what is per-reviewed. So be it. 'Three species of wildflowers, dramatically called goatsbeards, were introduced from Europe to America in the early 1900s. After a few decades, their populations expanded and they began encroaching on one another’s turf. Whenever these mixed populations appeared, the species interbred (called hybridizing) and produced sterile hybrid offspring (like the mules produced from donkeys and horses). I have debunked your wildflower plants a long time ago. I will not repeat myself. If you had anything to add - find my debunking of you. Chichibichi and Chiuwawa and other nonsenses explained here: http://www.icr.org/article/cichlid-coloration-corroborates-creation/Guys.... Know the other side arguments because right now it seems like you are not into debate, and does not want to know the other side arguments. That is sad, because I know the other side - yours arguments that I showed not once, not twice, but many times. ''However, they also found that the bluish and reddish cichlids interbreed'' As I said in my original post ''While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.'' So you are wrong. They are indeed different species, it's proven, sorry. Also do you have any website that is not a bunch of religious fallacies? https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/090301_cichlidspeciationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cichlid#Speciation |
|
|
|
So are you going to enable fiat withdrawals again when you finish the site?
Hi Astargath, Sadly we need to differentiate between refunds and our new setup as a bride between Crypto and Fiat. If you are still waiting for a refund please send me a PM. But yes we will offer many services around Crypto and Fiat currencies. Best regards, Robert @Bitwala Nope, I got mine, I'm just asking out of curiosity if you are going to have the same services as before as well. |
|
|
|
Sigh. I thought, for a second, we were going to get an original argument or an actual piece of evidence. Instead you have gone back to copy-pasting from some nonsensical, pseudo-scientific creationist website.
You dismiss the sources just because they are creationist when I told you their are creationist sources......... Only because the creationist say something is your reason to dismiss it? No wonder that you believe in evolution as you dismiss any evidence on the contrary... All you people do is referring to ad hominem. Thats all you do. I knew it would be pointless you would dismiss everything without arguing with it. If you would want other debunks just ask me... I see you just does not want to hear the other side of the story don't you? 49 still to go - if you would only wish to know... Mountain of evidences awaits... ''Cichlids provide scientists with a unique perspective of speciation, having become extremely diverse in the more recent geological past.'' ''Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.) Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348'' ''Three species of wildflowers, dramatically called goatsbeards, were introduced from Europe to America in the early 1900s. After a few decades, their populations expanded and they began encroaching on one another’s turf. Whenever these mixed populations appeared, the species interbred (called hybridizing) and produced sterile hybrid offspring (like the mules produced from donkeys and horses). That was until the late forties, when two brand new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species looked very similar to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. Evolution had created a new species that could reproduce, but that could not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it evolved. Evolution naysayers aren’t keen on this example, because, rather than genetic changes occurring to create a new organism, this particular change relied on polyploidy – a doubling up of the current DNA. Therefore, because no new genetic information was created, evolution deniers will not count this as a “win” for evolution. However, a new species that can not mate with the original species was indeed created. So it is what it is. A new species was born, thanks to evolution.'' http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html |
|
|
|
|
So are you going to enable fiat withdrawals again when you finish the site?
|
|
|
|
There are at least 2 places in the Bible (one in Isaiah) that tell us that in the next life we will never remember any of this. It will never come to mind. So, it is not that you don't believe in God. Rather, it is that you are angry with Him for not judging things according to the way you think. Don't throw away eternity for yourself. Having the pleasure of some deep anger against God in this life (though I don't see where there is pleasure in anger), is not worth losing your salvation for eternity. Rather, humble yourself, and ask God to comfort you and bring peace to your mind and soul.  ''Rather, it is that you are angry with Him for not judging things according to the way you think.'' Actually as you can clearly see from my example above, I'm not angry or happy, it simply makes no sense and it's not fair. What makes it unfair is the unfairness of mankind toward God. God gave His all in Jesus death on the cross. He did it to save mankind. But here you are, not only accepting the imperfection of being sinful in the first place, but extending your imperfection to the rejecting of the great sacrifice Jesus did to save you. You ain't fair. Certainly not to God. God sacrificed himself to himself to forgive us. Another nonsense from the bible right there. It makes absolutely no sense and we are not even saved, we are still here, aren't we? Why did an omniscient and all powerful god need to sacrifice his ''son'' to forgive humanity? Why not just forgive us? What is there to forgive anyways, he already knew everything that would happen. Perfection requires justice. God couldn't just forgive without destroying His Own perfection. The sacrifice of Jesus included the punishment for mankind that would maintain the perfection of God. The perfection of mankind needed to be maintained, because God had judged mankind so extremely good at the time of the creation, that God placed His spirit within mankind. In order to maintain the perfection of His own judgment about mankind, He needed to maintain the perfection of mankind. The perfection having been maintained in the sacrifice of Jesus, mankind is now free to be his own agent... to accept God's perfection for himself, or to reject it. Since God is love, He truly wishes mankind to accept the perfection of Godness or God-likeness. And since God is love and just, He realizes that He must not coerce any man in the judgment that each person makes. There is no way to adequately and properly explain the things that are involved in the salvation of man. Suffice it to say that God is holding the salvation choice open for each person as long as that person lives. And since Jesus was God as well as man, mankind is being brought into God-likeness. Maintaining health is simply man using the strength of God that God has placed in each and every one of us. What the fuck? Imagine I'm God and I know everything that's going to happen. It makes no sense for me to get mad at people I created for things they are going to do if I knew about it beforehand. There is no need to forgive anyone because I already know what's going to happen. If I didn't want that to happen then I wouldn't have created it, no? What you say is a major example of one of the major points. Nobody can imagine how God thinks. Since you don't know everything that's going to happen like God does, and since you don't know how things all work together, why would you even think your logic about creating or not creating is valid? Since you know that your logic is not strong enough to be valid, you are simply hoping it might be valid, and you have faith that it is valid. This is exactly what religious people do in their religions. Keep on worshiping yourself in your religious logic if you want. But when the chips are so far down that you can't find a way out, remember God. He will accept you if you come to Him sincerely. Do it now, unless you have locked yourself so deeply into God unbelief that you have no chance of turning to Him. So am I supposed to just believe in something that I will never understand? Even if I knew god existed how would I ever know that what he is doing is the right thing? Why would anyone worship god if we can't even understand if he is good or not? Sure the bible says he is but how would we ever know? What are you even yammering about? You believe in science, don't you? You believe in evolution, don't you? But the small amount of either one of them that you know - science or evolution - shows that you believe in things that you don't really know about very much. How do you know about believing in science or evolution? Other people tell you about them. Same with the Bible writings. This means that you are very religions. Go ahead and tell me that you know everything about science or evolution. I always like a good laugh. You don't have to ''believe in science''. You know the earth is round, don't you? You make fun of notbatman because you know he is not right. We have experiments, photographic evidence, videos, tests, math, that proves the earth is not flat. That's science. Religion on the other hand doesn't have that, there is no test or photographic evidence, videos or math to prove it and yet you ask me to believe in your specific god and when I question his actions you simply tell me I don't understand. Why would anyone believe in that? https://youtu.be/LQ0Vtk9ffGIYou don't have to believe in the Bible. You know it's a book, right? Why do you have to believe in science? Because it wasn't you who did the scientific experiments (except that you might have done one or two). Other than that, you have to believe the scientists who did the experiments, or you have to believe the people who have written about the experiments the scientists did. In other words, all of science is a religion for all people... except for the few scientific experiments anybody might have done for himself. For example. You might have personally stuck a couple of electrodes into water, and found that you could split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Since you did it personally, there is a piece of science that you know, rather than having to take it on faith. But are you one of the scientists who runs nuclear power plants? If you aren't, you have to believe what the scientists tell you, or what the some general "practitioner" scientists have written down in the books. What if they are lying? What if they are mistaken? Consider Fukushima and Chernobyl. Odds are that they aren't lying. But you don't know they aren't mistaken or lying. Religion.Either you believe science and religion, or you don't, or you only believe one of them. But outside of a few small science experiments, you don't know that science is factual. Same with religion. There are those who tell you some factual experience about religion that they had, but they don't know it all, and you have to make the choice whether or not to believe them. As far as you go, both religion and science are religion for you. Go to the doctor and get cured by religion. That's all it is for you, because you don't know for a fact that what they say is the truth. Unless you, yourself, are a very experienced doctor, you totally have to take it on faith... just like you have to take Bible scholars on faith if you want to believe them. You just believe and hope, same as any formal religion. However, all the experiments and tests are written somewhere and I can also study the subject and perform the experiments myself, you don't have that possibility with religion because there are no experiments, no tests, no math, even If I wanted to test them by myself I couldn't because there are none. Sure you have to trust science in some things unless you want to study about everything and perform tests yourself but at least you have the possibility to actually do the experiments or at least understand them, again, you don't have that in religion, you are supposed to believe in it blindly because badecker says so and we can't understand god so we just have to follow what he says because he says so. There is no logic there. Science works, religion doesn't. But you didn't read the experiments. You didn't do the experiments. Ever heard of the term "fake news?" Some of the news has been fake for over a hundred years. But since it wasn't known to be fake way back then, it has been incorporated into the public psyche, and we accept it as truth... even though we don't know.A simple example is the fake news of flat earth. Look at how many hundreds of years people believed it to be true. And (as you well know) there are those who keep on believing it today. They even have a lot of near-science built up to almost-prove that FE is real. And many of those FE people base their whole idea around religion, formally. So, go out and do all the scientific the experiments so that you know your science isn't religion. But if you only do one or two, its religion for you. And you know what that means, don't you? When you get good (or bad) health by following medical advice, you have, Health and Religion.But you are ignoring my point. Your religion doesn't have any experiments or tests, even if someone wanted to see if they were right they wouldn't be able to. I obviously cannot study and perform tests on everything I do or use. I don't need to perform a scientific experiment to see that my PC is working or that planes fly. Science works, I have ''faith'' in science because it has proven to me that it works time after time just like when you have faith in your wife that she wont cheat on you because she has proven to be loyal. This doesn't mean it wont happen just like science, it could be wrong but there is really no reason to think it is. When it comes to health I'm sure you go to a doctor or a hospital, don't you? Did you study medicine? Do you need to, to trust doctors? Why do you trust doctors? Because you know they have studied medicine and you know science works. This is the essence of science vs religion. |
|
|
|
But you haven't provided even one concretely factual piece of evidence for evolution. Not even one! Sll evolution evidence fits something else (like adaptation) better than it fits evolution. So unlike Przemax, who tries and spectacularly fails to discredit the evidence, you choose just to completely ignore it even exists. I suppose that's almost a smarter way of approaching it, since you know your factless arguments will get utterly destroyed if you engage with the evidence. Actually, it sounds like you are ignoring that evolution doesn't exist. Evolution theory exists. All kinds of (mostly) contradictory ideas exist about evolution. But since there isn't any proof for evolution - nobody has ever seen something evolving that they can prove is evolution and not something else - everything that you hear or read about evolution is hearsay or the like. Evolution is a hoax... or do you have some proof that you can show us? Evolution is proven, do you have any evidence suggesting is a hoax? |
|
|
|
Those are wrong premises. You cannot assume the changed experiments and not the same experiments... Repeated means repeated. Should I give you dictionary? It means making the same once again.........
You have just a big problems with words.... You need better dictionaries. You cannot say something is repeated when it is not repeated.... clearly........
You've made it abundantly clear you don't understand the scientific process. You can stop repeating the same incorrect point over and over again. It's boring. No my friend you dont understand the process... You repeat the experiment wheter it is boring or not. It is either succesfull or not. If you make another experiment it is not the same experiment . It is a rules of language and scientific methology uses rules of language and logic. Scientific theory cannot violate the rules of logic. Now, if you would like to actually disprove any of the studies or offer some of your own evidence, rather than squabbling about terminology, I'm listening. If not, I'll assume that you agree with me regarding the spontaneous production of amino acids.
Lets assume im deluded and complete moron. That does not make you right. Doesn't make him wrong either. You are indeed deluded, you wont accept any evidence, you didn't even respond to his question. Do you agree on the spontaneous production of amino acids or not, stop rambling. |
|
|
|
There was no other circle than in your head ok? All you can do is insulting your debater... Thats all you are suceeding in. And yes i feel enoughly insulted.
You compare me to a Nazi then complain about being insulted? Wow. Ok I insulted you. Once... And you did that constantly. It was not a lie to point out that you do not understand the scientific process. changed experiment is not the same experiment. Failed experiment is not the same as succesful experiment. If one denies a simple logical and language constructs like you do - there is no point in even talking to such a person because he is illogical. If one denies language and his rules, you cannot convince him to stick to rules of logic and language using the language and logic that you constantly violate by calling things the same when they are not the same. As I explained above, I was using general scientific terminology, and it was my mistake for assuming you understood that. Again, I assumed you understood that experiments that are repeated and redone are generally modified in some small ways to prove some new points. There is zero point exactly repeating an experiment that has already been proved. This is basic science 101. Again, my mistake for assuming you understood this.
My original points still stand, however. There are literally hundreds of experiments of different early Earth conditions, all producing amino acids. You have failed to discredit this in any way shape or form. Those are wrong premises. You cannot assume the changed experiments and not the same experiments... Repeated means repeated. Should I give you dictionary? It means making the same once again......... You have just a big problems with words.... You need better dictionaries. You cannot say something is repeated when it is not repeated.... clearly........ Maybe they taught you wrong that words can be interpreted as you please but that makes unable to communicate with the outside world ok? I dont know what they have taught you - but that is clearly violating the rules of logic and language. But the evidence for creationism, we are still waiting. |
|
|
|
There is zero point exactly repeating an experiment that has already been proved Yeah.... It has been proved to have produced 5 amino acids........................ And yet..... yet you said they did redo the experiment. Man.... I guess you do not know what are we even talking about.... Do you? Again, my mistake for assuming you understood this.
WTF MAN.... You do not even understand the scientific theory and you constantly harass me..... That I don't know it. You are annoying...... IM DONE..... Your constant ill treating your debater and not understanding the principles of what we are talking about makes IT POINTLESS. So you admit it did produce amino acids? We are done, then. Now we are waiting for your evidence. |
|
|
|
When are you providing proof of creationism?
The start of the proof for creationism is showing the fact that evolution is a hoax. The rest of the proof is for a different topic. It's really not and you never proved that evolution is a hoax. You are like notbatman, you think somehow evolution is a global conspiracy for some unknown reason. |
|
|
|
There are at least 2 places in the Bible (one in Isaiah) that tell us that in the next life we will never remember any of this. It will never come to mind. So, it is not that you don't believe in God. Rather, it is that you are angry with Him for not judging things according to the way you think. Don't throw away eternity for yourself. Having the pleasure of some deep anger against God in this life (though I don't see where there is pleasure in anger), is not worth losing your salvation for eternity. Rather, humble yourself, and ask God to comfort you and bring peace to your mind and soul. ''Rather, it is that you are angry with Him for not judging things according to the way you think.'' Actually as you can clearly see from my example above, I'm not angry or happy, it simply makes no sense and it's not fair. What makes it unfair is the unfairness of mankind toward God. God gave His all in Jesus death on the cross. He did it to save mankind. But here you are, not only accepting the imperfection of being sinful in the first place, but extending your imperfection to the rejecting of the great sacrifice Jesus did to save you. You ain't fair. Certainly not to God. God sacrificed himself to himself to forgive us. Another nonsense from the bible right there. It makes absolutely no sense and we are not even saved, we are still here, aren't we? Why did an omniscient and all powerful god need to sacrifice his ''son'' to forgive humanity? Why not just forgive us? What is there to forgive anyways, he already knew everything that would happen. Perfection requires justice. God couldn't just forgive without destroying His Own perfection. The sacrifice of Jesus included the punishment for mankind that would maintain the perfection of God. The perfection of mankind needed to be maintained, because God had judged mankind so extremely good at the time of the creation, that God placed His spirit within mankind. In order to maintain the perfection of His own judgment about mankind, He needed to maintain the perfection of mankind. The perfection having been maintained in the sacrifice of Jesus, mankind is now free to be his own agent... to accept God's perfection for himself, or to reject it. Since God is love, He truly wishes mankind to accept the perfection of Godness or God-likeness. And since God is love and just, He realizes that He must not coerce any man in the judgment that each person makes. There is no way to adequately and properly explain the things that are involved in the salvation of man. Suffice it to say that God is holding the salvation choice open for each person as long as that person lives. And since Jesus was God as well as man, mankind is being brought into God-likeness. Maintaining health is simply man using the strength of God that God has placed in each and every one of us. What the fuck? Imagine I'm God and I know everything that's going to happen. It makes no sense for me to get mad at people I created for things they are going to do if I knew about it beforehand. There is no need to forgive anyone because I already know what's going to happen. If I didn't want that to happen then I wouldn't have created it, no? What you say is a major example of one of the major points. Nobody can imagine how God thinks. Since you don't know everything that's going to happen like God does, and since you don't know how things all work together, why would you even think your logic about creating or not creating is valid? Since you know that your logic is not strong enough to be valid, you are simply hoping it might be valid, and you have faith that it is valid. This is exactly what religious people do in their religions. Keep on worshiping yourself in your religious logic if you want. But when the chips are so far down that you can't find a way out, remember God. He will accept you if you come to Him sincerely. Do it now, unless you have locked yourself so deeply into God unbelief that you have no chance of turning to Him. So am I supposed to just believe in something that I will never understand? Even if I knew god existed how would I ever know that what he is doing is the right thing? Why would anyone worship god if we can't even understand if he is good or not? Sure the bible says he is but how would we ever know? What are you even yammering about? You believe in science, don't you? You believe in evolution, don't you? But the small amount of either one of them that you know - science or evolution - shows that you believe in things that you don't really know about very much. How do you know about believing in science or evolution? Other people tell you about them. Same with the Bible writings. This means that you are very religions. Go ahead and tell me that you know everything about science or evolution. I always like a good laugh. You don't have to ''believe in science''. You know the earth is round, don't you? You make fun of notbatman because you know he is not right. We have experiments, photographic evidence, videos, tests, math, that proves the earth is not flat. That's science. Religion on the other hand doesn't have that, there is no test or photographic evidence, videos or math to prove it and yet you ask me to believe in your specific god and when I question his actions you simply tell me I don't understand. Why would anyone believe in that? https://youtu.be/LQ0Vtk9ffGIYou don't have to believe in the Bible. You know it's a book, right? Why do you have to believe in science? Because it wasn't you who did the scientific experiments (except that you might have done one or two). Other than that, you have to believe the scientists who did the experiments, or you have to believe the people who have written about the experiments the scientists did. In other words, all of science is a religion for all people... except for the few scientific experiments anybody might have done for himself. For example. You might have personally stuck a couple of electrodes into water, and found that you could split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Since you did it personally, there is a piece of science that you know, rather than having to take it on faith. But are you one of the scientists who runs nuclear power plants? If you aren't, you have to believe what the scientists tell you, or what the some general "practitioner" scientists have written down in the books. What if they are lying? What if they are mistaken? Consider Fukushima and Chernobyl. Odds are that they aren't lying. But you don't know they aren't mistaken or lying. Religion.Either you believe science and religion, or you don't, or you only believe one of them. But outside of a few small science experiments, you don't know that science is factual. Same with religion. There are those who tell you some factual experience about religion that they had, but they don't know it all, and you have to make the choice whether or not to believe them. As far as you go, both religion and science are religion for you. Go to the doctor and get cured by religion. That's all it is for you, because you don't know for a fact that what they say is the truth. Unless you, yourself, are a very experienced doctor, you totally have to take it on faith... just like you have to take Bible scholars on faith if you want to believe them. You just believe and hope, same as any formal religion. However, all the experiments and tests are written somewhere and I can also study the subject and perform the experiments myself, you don't have that possibility with religion because there are no experiments, no tests, no math, even If I wanted to test them by myself I couldn't because there are none. Sure you have to trust science in some things unless you want to study about everything and perform tests yourself but at least you have the possibility to actually do the experiments or at least understand them, again, you don't have that in religion, you are supposed to believe in it blindly because badecker says so and we can't understand god so we just have to follow what he says because he says so. There is no logic there. Science works, religion doesn't. |
|
|
|
^^^
How about you post this empirical evidence the earth is a spinning globe and prove I'm a liar. Show us how you measure sea curve then we can all see what a big fat liar I am. Also don't forget to include direct measurement of the Earth's motion.
How about you post your measurements that show the earth is flat, you have the burden of proof, until then you are still a liar and a jew. If the earth were a ball the horizon would drop away as you got higher, when you go higher the horizon always stays at eye level, hence its a flat plane ''would'' ''should'' ''could'' How about you show me some measurements or math to prove the earth is flath? ''would'' ''should'' ''could'' WAT? Try using your eyes instead of "math" The "math" of lighthouses light proves its a flat plane, but yeah light curves, I forgot I can use my eyes and a telescope or a p900 to look at the ISS live in space. I can use my eyes to look at the thousands of pictures,videos and livestreams of earth from space. Here is one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtU_mdL2vBM |
|
|
|
^^^
How about you post this empirical evidence the earth is a spinning globe and prove I'm a liar. Show us how you measure sea curve then we can all see what a big fat liar I am. Also don't forget to include direct measurement of the Earth's motion.
How about you post your measurements that show the earth is flat, you have the burden of proof, until then you are still a liar and a jew. If the earth were a ball the horizon would drop away as you got higher, when you go higher the horizon always stays at eye level, hence its a flat plane ''would'' ''should'' ''could'' How about you show me some measurements or math to prove the earth is flath? |
|
|
|
It is always the same with creationists. "Show me the transitional fossils!" Here they are. "Aha, but where are the transitional fossils between the transitional fossils you just showed me? Now there are two gaps instead of just one!"
First you said, "he created some aminoacids but not even half of them to make a simplest of all organism". I proved that wrong.
Then you said, "Why not repeat the experiments". I proved that they did.
Then, for reasons entirely unclear to anyone except yourself, it had to be an experiment from 2008. I proved that one as well.
Now it's a problem with the type of amino acids created? Utterly hilarious.
Given barn door evidence that the building blocks of life formed in the early earth environment, you react by imposing arbitrary new constraints on the evidence that you will accept. Here's the issue though: No amount of evidence will ever be good enough for you. You don't understand science or the scientific process. You don't accept logic and reason. Therefore, there is nothing I can say and no evidence I can present that will change your mind.
The very fact that you use the word "evolutionist" as an insult is a perfect metaphor for this entire argument. An evolutionist is simply someone who understands science and accepts facts. Something you clearly are not.
I have proven your own research you had gave produced only 8 amino acids in the year of 2008 . The other research produced 25 amino acids in 2008. Yet you claim it is the same experiment just redone. If you do not find that problematic I dont know what is wrong with your intelligence or honesty. 8 is not 25. How stupid one should be not to see that? Yet you see that is not a problem. That is beyond me. I rest my case. Good luck with your "research". Bye. I cannot reason with people challenged mathematicly and logically. You don't understand science or the scientific process. You don't accept logic and reason. Said a person seeing no problem in calling 8 being 25......... Awesome bro. Utterly hilarious. Indeed my dear science monger... Indeed. Utterly hilarious. Good luck in your scientific explorations  . You will need it. You will need it a lot. When are you providing proof of creationism? It takes a little more time because we cannot just make stuff up. For us 25 is 25 and not from 0 to 100. It takes courage and wisdom to say - I don't know. Do you have guts to say that? Yeah but, you still haven't provided a single piece of evidence yet. That's the problem with people like you, extremely skeptical about evolution but you believe a supernatural being created everything in 7 days, what a world we live in. |
|
|
|
Religion is not what people think. Most people think of church, synagog, or mosque. Religion is, really, the way of life. Each person has his own personal religion in the way he personally believes and lives. Atheism is a religion. Making up definitions is also a religion. Not necessarily. Everything one does is part of his religion. But one particular thing, is only a person's religion when it overshadows everything else in his life that he does. Noah and Daniel Webster wrote and compiled dictionaries. Their religions were religions of making up or modifying or clarifying definitions. When you or I make up a definition once in a while, such is part of our religion, but it is not our religion. ''the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.'' ''a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.'' You see, atheism does not worship anything, it also doesn't have any pursuit, it is in fact a non-belief, there is no goal, is just the lack of belief. That is the definition as well. ''disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.'' So no, atheism is not a religion and you should honestly stop making up definitions and words. Now you are simply trolling. Why? Because you know that the definition of religion includes: "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice."See: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t. You continually prove that you are a person of bad faith, against telling the entire truth, except when it suits you. But, thank you for giving me the opportunity to show forum readers this, about you. Atheism is not a point or matter of ethics or conscience, people also do not believe in atheism, there is nothing to believe in so again you are WRONG. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
