My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)

Why don't you start a discussion how FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH = a square?

You seemed confused.
Do you understand now why you comments were so far fetched and frankly mentally deficient? "Host seed"? Give me a break. I'm not going to argue against an endless flood of make believe crap.If we discuss "host seed" you'll say the "host seed" is proven by the "divine power" which is supported by "essential essence" which in turn is evidenced by "the innate energetic".It's all woo woo blah. Can you find me a single example of a seed which produces a plant which is not produced by the seed which produced it?Seems like you're arguing yourself into an ever shrinking spiral on that one.

Squares require equal sides. Four corners does not necessarily mean equal sides.Trapezoids have 4 corners and unequal sides.But, like I said, this and many other areas where you are apparently without education would be handled better in threads dedicated to them.This thread is about how Creationists can't seem to think straight.While your posts are great examples of this, correcting your endless examples is unfortunately not on topic.

These falsehoods do not relate in any way to the post to which you are ostensibly replying, which did not contain the words "four" or "corners" or "earth" or "square".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Tell me, do they ever do what actual scientists do, such as seeking evidence against their own theories? Well, this is amazing arrogance on the part of cdesignists. Frankly, I know of no other "scientific" theory which brazenly incorporates its own positive assessment of itself inside itself, such as saying "is the best explanation". See what sort of Google hits you get when you search "scientific theory" AND "best explained by": virtually all of them refer to intelligent design.An actual scientific theory is, at its best, not contradicted by nonconforming evidence, and would be subject to revision or elimination if such actively-sought evidence were found (as opposed to outright ignored).

Tell ME, how they get variation within a kind (i.e. finch beaks) as evidence of the TOE? Not evolution but the TOE? What is the evidence other than variation and natural selection at work? Natural selection is animals adapting to their environment from already existing DNA. Hahahahahahahahahahahah...pot...kettle...black. Yuh, and the ID'ist are arrogant...LOL Have you ever heard of the "theory of evolution"? Saying that natural selection is the mechanism to TOE is like saying because I can flap my arms like a bird eventually i'll be able to fly.No evidence whatsoever to back up that claim. LOL. Have you ever looked at the contradictory evidence against the "theory of evolution?" The entire theory is one huge assumption based on variation within a species. The Bible explains it perfectly as we see animals producing after their own kind. What exaclty are you seeing? Something different?Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

No lies or falsehoods other than from you. Here is your brilliant response, which you now seem to understand was highly ignorant and back away from.

quote:

---

"corners". Enough said.

​

Spheres do not have corners.

---

There is no other reading than you were trying to make ridicule in reading a wonderful and commonly held phrase to refer to a square or a cornered block. It is hardly a response to my post which says one scripture uniguely does not claim the earth is flat - that's not an opinion but a fact. Of millions of vindicated stats in its verses and pages, you have thus far denied every single one with a lusting. You are arguing as one of the fundamenlaist religions you so despise.I ask you to please bite the bullet and hail an ancient scripture which never stated what all later scriptures erred in.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

'Seed' refers to a male and female ['host parentage'] issue ['output'], which reproduces the offspring. There is no way around this equation, nor a better way to say it and be understood of all generations of humanity. It is the first recorded equation to do with reproduction, and it is totally omitted in ToE. If you fail to acknowledge this it is your problem.The same goes for the first recorded listing of life form groupings by terrain and habitat, as in Genesis, aka 'species' today. Here, reproduction by following a specie's seed output transcends that of environmental, skeletal and genes which disregarded the first and primal factor of the seed impact: before a life form can be accounted as the result or influence of environment, they are 'FIRST' the
result of what the seed data says.These are 100% vindicated today, while it would be astonishing if such premises were even considered and proven wrong. Genesis poses a double whammy of being correct as well as proving itself right in comparison to ToE. Must be very difficult for you to admit this - very fundamentalistic.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

LOL. Have you ever looked at the contradictory evidence against the "theory of evolution?"

---

Its against his religion, as in a blasphemy. He cannot even look into the millions of vindicated stats in Genesis, which contains the first recording of a finite universe in its very opening verse. Nor does he acknowledge the first listing of life form groupings in a hard copy text. I see the day when ToE will be banned as scientific myth - an honor even worse than many theologies.

I did not write the things which you are pretending that I wrote.That was Nuggin, who is a different person from me, as you can tell by us not having the same name.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Because it is consistent with the predictions of the theory.What exactly is puzzling you? Which is presumably one of the many reasons why no-one says that "natural selection is the mechanism to TOE", a phrase which gets exactly 0 google hits.Perhaps you could try disputing something that someone has said? Like that natural selection is a mechanism of evolution, a phrase which gets 38,500 google hits. No, but I've often been amused by the antics of creationists pretending that such evidence exists. No. For starters, we see that the fossil record obeys the Law of Faunal Succession.If all we have is "animals producing after their own kind" then where the blue blazes did all the new kinds of animals come from?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So you admit that some variation happens. Since any degree of biological variation (given sufficient time) is compatible with the theory of evolution, your question makes no sense. How does this help intelligent design, which makes the stronger (and so far unsubstantiated) claim that variation goes only yea far and no farther? Where is the evidence that such boundaries exist, or have always existed? You totally missed the point here (not surprising). Unlike the so-called "theory of Intelligent design", the theory of evolution does not include any such statement that it itself is the best explanation for biological diversity. It simply details the various mechanisms involved and will stand or fall or be subsequently modified on the evidence, nothing more. How does "producing after their own kind" differentiate intelligent design from evolution? This happens in evolution, too.Really, if your only goal in life is to denigrate a theory which you (admittedly) take no trouble to even learn about, you are succeeding admirably. How about sticking a bit closer to the subject, for a change? Which version of "I Hate Evolution" would you prefer to be taught in schools: Intelligent Design^TM, or Creationism^TM?

My profound apologies. It was an honest error.

There are COUNTLESS examples of life forms on this planet that don't reproduce sexually and/or don't have traditional "male/female" sexes.So, I'd say there are PLENTY of ways "around this equation". Ridiculous.The Egyptians recorded all that stuff, you can still go see it.Not to mention it's also present in cave art in France, rock art in Australia, etc.You keep making these claims that Genesis was the first recorded instance of X, Y, Z, but Genesis is YOUNGER than Egyptian heiroglyphs. YOUNGER than the Book of the Dead (after all, that's where Moses got the 10 commandments).You need to rethink your timeline. You keep making this claim without anything to back it up.It's based on false assumptions by you and a woefully inaccurate timeline.How old do you think Genesis is? When was it written? By who?

Um, why don't you start by telling us what "a kind" is?I thought you were arguing for ID, not Creationism. Again, the exact same thing, I know, but you seem to want to pretend they are different."kind" is a Creationist term.Does ID use Creationist lingo now, too?Kind of undercuts your (not "you're") claim that the two are different.Are you saying that variation can happen in the "kinds" of animals that the "Jewish Designer" "Designed" in Genesis?LOL.You feel that sinking feeling? You're standing in quicksand.