Are there any NEW Creationist arguments? (v.2)

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by synthesizer-patel, Jun 2, 2010.

  1. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    I cannot be accused of this in any wise: I have names - you do not. I have all other components - you do not. Asking you for an equivalence is hardly proof of negativism.



    You have no record whatsoever is the better description.


    You are wrong. My path is for historical veracity, not my own.

    You claim there are no writings. I agreed any other proof would do - as long as it has historical veracity. And the lack of writings for 120K years proves your own criteria unacceptable - there is no vaccum in space!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    Yeah? You've noticed the astoning effect? I know I do.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    Are there any NEW Creationist arguments? (v.2)

    Yes.

    There is no scientific alternatives to Creationism, based on a finite universe. In fact there is no science per se in its absence. In fact, the forces observed in Evolution prove Creationism and negates atheism.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    'Puff'; 'puff'.
     
  8. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    No matter which universe you live in, a finite or infinite one, that a document 1000's of years old even discusses this issue is astonishing. And the document does not even have to be verifiably right; but astonishingly, it is also right to boot: this here uni is 100% finite by scientific criteria - an arguement which neo ToE scientists shun just as readilly as they do the speech stumbling block. Yes, its astonishing - unless one is numbed so it flies over a cookoo's nest.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289

    No - that's not a proof of another document which discusses the finite universe issue!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    Well. when it comes to knee-jerk reactionaries, 'meh', I just roll another one, bro.
     
  11. Blindman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,425
    I can provide many methods for you to prove that nothing on this earth is older then 5770 years, give or take a few thousand. Show it and you totally win. Yet the evidence in the negative is overwhelming. No judge would ever allow a bible as scientific evidence.
     
  12. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    Are there any NEW Creationist arguments? (v.2)

    Yes.

    That ToE disregarded pivotal pre-life actions which anticipated life, and which had to occur before life did. Like the critical separation of the elements listed in Genesis: the critical separation of light; the critical separation of the land from the water; etc, etc.
     
  13. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289

    No one said there was nothing before 5770 - this was limited to speech only. A judge would not forbid evidence from any place if it was credible.
     
  14. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    Are there any NEW Creationist arguments? (v.2)

    Yes.


    That the first life forms had to be dual-gendered [Genesis]. Only a male-female dual construct entity can reproduce either male or female, and transmit this trait to the offspring. If a green marble can produce a red marble - then the green marble had to contain both green and red.
     
  15. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    IamJoseph: "Because it's unknown whether or not humans spoke 7,000 years ago (I, IamJospeh, Ignores all claims that are not biblical), this PROVES that humans did not speak back then!"

    See my YouTube link previous...

    Namely, Matching the book of Genesis exactly...


    The rest of his posts that follow were just gibberish and "Me is Great!" speeches...
     
  16. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction

    Male and female reproduction were around millions of years before the Book of Genesis describes.

    The book of Genesis also claims the Earth cannot be moved, that the Earth is Flat, That the Earth is stationary, that the Earth is center of the solar system, that rabbits chew cud and that bats are birds.
     
  17. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    You are mis-representing the position confronting humanity. We have no name pre-5770, a startling situation in itself. But it gets much bigger: the lack of names is not a random occurence - it has the eerie alignment with the exact Genesis declaration. Its not gibberish!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    I repeat:
    You utterly ignored (and continue to ignore) the Native Americans.

    Probably because you claim it's not in the book of Genesis... How nicely cherry picked of you.

    You ignore anything that contradicts your wanted outcome- typical...

    All the while, claiming that you're so scientific. If you were scientific, the Mainstream Scientists would agree with you. You are not scientific and so the rest of us think that you are This.

    A lack of names is NOT perfectly aligned with Genesis at all- You made that up.
    Additionally, a lack of names from more than 6000 years ago does not PROVE that humans did NOT speak. You are trying to use an UNKNOWN to PROVE a NEGATIVE.
     
  19. Blindman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,425
    So according to you speech and writing occurred at the same time, and that language was a fully developed modern language, overnight?
     
  20. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    This is not contradicted by Genesis: before the 5770 date of the Genesis calendar, it lists many epochs of times, including epochs before life emerged. Check the seperations listed prior to life's emergence, flaunted by disregard in ToE!

    You are confusing the Hebrew bible with other scriptures. This happens to be the only bible which specifically does NOT say the earth is flat. Further, examing the Genesis calendar, which is based on the solar, lunar and earth movements, there is no other reading it is talking moving sphears with a repetitive mode of orbits. You are showing up - you have not correctly read what you reject.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The advent of the DAY and WEEK, critical for earthly seasons and universe measurements, were introduced to humanity in Genesis. So was the stars being innumerable and not accountable, compared with the grains of sands. Astronomy [signs in the sky] and astrology [omens in the sky] were also introduced here. The world's oldest calendar is no laughing matter either. Time measurements as we know it today - was introduced in the Hebrew bible, as was the requirement of listing dates, names and places when making claims.
     
  21. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    OK, now you're full of it...

    Dude, seriously, do you think everyone else is uneducated and will just buy what you spout without question?

    "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."

    "Say among the nations, 'The LORD reigns.' The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity. "
     
  22. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    No - and its not according to me, but what is evidential. Writings is a close subsequence of speech, a few centuries only. This is what Genesis says. Its reverse says speech happened 100's of 1000's of years ago, and writing came recently, with no imprints of development between these times. According to Genesis, all of humanity begat speech at one time, and all of humanity got the art of writings at one similar time across the world. Thus speech [language] were not derived from one group to another, but this was an inherent trait with all groups, and it only needed a click action. Its like a parent clicking a child's inherent trait, not teaching anew, how to speak.

    Spain did not teach the native americans language - the natives had an inbuilt trait to acquire language. This is not seen with other life frms - speech is unique to one group. All historical evidences align with Genesis - none with ToE in this regard. In fact, speech is the great stumbling block for ToE - the reason we are even discussing this subject here.
     
  23. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    And apparently, they were doing it ten thousand years ago (Which you continue to ignore...)

    You speak of evidence while ignoring evidence.

    Doesn't the bible have some choice words about hypocrisy?
     

Share This Page