[Homertard]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

On question 26 you state do they bleive that the world was created from nothing when infact that is what christians belive too steming from the term "cretion ex nihilo" when god created the world from nothing, therefore that question is invalid! and even the pope himself claims that evolution should be considered "as much more than a hypothesis" and infact evolution may have been the perfect tool to give humans freewill!
To put forward a suggestion to the common problem of human kindness and emotions Geforry Miller suggests the idea of sexual selsection which involves the idea that we are only nice to people in the short term as we want them to be nice back and in the longterm as we wish to carry on our genes an interesting idea i belive!

[SalvationSeeker]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

On question 26 you state do they bleive that the world was created from nothing when infact that is what christians belive too steming from the term "cretion ex nihilo" when god created the world from nothing, therefore that question is invalid!

There is a big difference, fool.
You believe the world created itself from nothing, without any reason or cause whatsoever.

We know that God, who was always there, created the world.
Now really, what is more logical?

and even the pope himself claims that evolution should be considered "as much more than a hypothesis" and infact evolution may have been the perfect tool to give humans freewill!

We don't care much for the befuddled opinons of the antichrist in Rome.

To put forward a suggestion to the common problem of human kindness and emotions Geforry Miller suggests the idea of sexual selsection which involves the idea that we are only nice to people in the short term as we want them to be nice back and in the longterm as we wish to carry on our genes an interesting idea i belive!

Blah blah blah.. More deviant beliefs from the satanic religion commonly known as "science"... and as usual, they have no proof whatsoever.

Get this through your head: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 'GENES'!
And who claims there is? SCIENTISTS. And as we have already stated, they are biased fanatics.
Obviously, nothing they say can be trusted.

I mean, have you never heard of a little something called 'critical thinking'? JUST WHY do you believe everything these people tell you?
Is it because they tell you there is no God and thus no judgement, no punishment for your sins?
And that is exactly what you want to hear, sinner?

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine;
But after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2 Timothy 4:3

[Brother Temperance]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

Home defence of course. But I'm a farmer, and we have dangerous animals roaming the land. Can't be too careful.

Friend, teenaged gypsies, vile though they may be, are not animals.

What you just sayed makes no sense! So your are saying other planets are basically figments of our imagination? Wait and these known existing planets are revolving around earth? Huh? please try and explain yourself!

Why is it that these yids are so keen on mutilating God's Favourite Language? That Cohen Avshalom fellow seems like a poet compared to this moron.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

Home defence of course. But I'm a farmer, and we have dangerous animals roaming the land. Can't be too careful.

All farmers are allowed weapons, if they have the licenses.

What dangerous animals would that be? A hedgehog with an attitude problem? An overly ambitious ferret? It's not like you have mountain lions, timber wolves, buck negros and grizzle bears over there.

[Kazoo]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

If the universe began with the big bang, then what caused it? (Since you claim nothing was before it.)

Theoretically, anything imaginable could have caused it. The rudimentary laws of physics were drastically different from what we see today in the pre-bang era. For all we know, the matter could very well have sprouted from nothingness, drawn together due to some radically differing laws of gravity, become a one-point particle with nearly infinite mass, imploded and achieved critical mass, and thusly exploded with untold force.

Just what did explode and from what, or where, did it come?

Like I said; the laws of particle physics, quantum physics, astrophysics, etc. were unrecognizable in their fundamentals when compared with our observed laws today. In other words, it's rather hard to say without being able to comprehensively analyze the laws to precede ours.

Do you seriously believe in action without cause?

No. However, I must ask what this has to do with the topic at hand?

If all began with a big bang, and before there was nothing, then how can you claim that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed?

Yes, the laws of conservation of mass/matter. We know that they apply in our current universe, they may even have applied in the one to precede ours and the one to precede it. Of course, they might now have.

Is that not a clear case of contradiction?

Nope. I really can't say that it is.

Cause if nothing can be created anew, then how could anything exist if the universe had a beginning?

Because God snapped his fingers and shattered the law of conservation of mass to create the universe, I suppose? (the argument does work both ways )

And if you instead find the idea of an eternal universe plausible...

Actually, it is quite likely that the cycle of creation and destruction has been going on for some time (or eternally, that works too)-humans just can not grasp the concept of anything having no beginning. The brain refuses to accept it.

Then why can't you find the idea of an eternal Creator God plausible? Or even possible?

Is it possible? Yes. Is it plausible? I'll not go past saying that it is possible. There's a reason that I'm always saying that non-theists and agnostics are correct. In their reasoning, the existence of a god or divine creator is either irrelevant, else unable to be proven or disproven. Extremists are never right (Yes, I myself am included in the category of "extremist").

If you cannot accept the possibility, then it comes down to personal belief on your part, not any reasoning.

Religion tosses logic and reason out the window--it is the nature of the beast. Whenever religion is concerned, it will always come down to personal, biased ideals.

And how could any evilution take place before any DNA existed? (As the theory of evilution require mutation and/or inheritance of genes, that is, DNA.)

Ever heard of Miller and Urey? Something about creating RNA from conditions similar to those of the Earth about 36 billion years ago. (Yes, the experiment was slightly flawed, but it does raise some interesting points)

Face it, your so-called "science" is nothing but an opressive and evil religion of satan, brainwashing you into believing nonsense.

Face it, your so-called "Christianity" is nothing but an oppressive and evil cult, brainwashing you into believing nonsense.

Again, it works both ways, you know.

[SalvationSeeker]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

Theoretically, anything imaginable could have caused it.

Here we go again.. theory this and theory that, no proof whatsover.
THEORETICALLY (since no proof seems to be needed) you could be a talking frog and the world a chunk of jello.

Please, supply some proof of your silly BELIEFS (ie theories) or atleast recognise that they are just that: beliefs.
And silly beliefs at that.

The rudimentary laws of physics were drastically different from what we see today in the pre-bang era.

And you know this HOW?
You're simply pulling all of this out of your sinning behind...

Let me get this right: Now, when your "laws" are no longer suitable, they no longer apply?
Frankly, this is getting quite laughable.

Also, if there are circumstances in which these laws do not apply, then how could you ever use them to try and disprove God's existance?
Or use the same to try and disprove that God created the universe? (Such as the deviant Dawkins tries to do.)
You cannot, and trying to do so would be hypocrisy of the highest order..
But then, scientists are a bunch of fanatic & illogical hypocrites.

For all we know, the matter could very well have sprouted from nothingness,

So basically, you admit that you really DON'T KNOW?

And all science and scientists EVERYWHERE claim for fact that nothing can be removed nor created.. It's one of the most basic "facts" of science.
Are you now saying that they are completely wrong?

If science cannot be trusted on that, and if that law is not really a law all of a sudden, then how can you trust it ("science") to be right on anything else?
It must required quite a HUGE amount of blind belief..

drawn together due to some radically differing laws of gravity, become a one-point particle with nearly infinite mass, imploded and achieved critical mass, and thusly exploded with untold force.

And it all happened without any cause whatsoever, got it.
Veryyyyyy logical.

Like I said; the laws of particle physics, quantum physics, astrophysics, etc. were unrecognizable in their fundamentals when compared with our observed laws today. In other words, it's rather hard to say without being able to comprehensively analyze the laws to precede ours.

But you still claim to know, fool.

No. However, I must ask what this has to do with the topic at hand?

If you believe that the universe created itself from NOTHING, without anything to cause said action.. Then you believe in action without cause.
So it is very relevant.

Yes, the laws of conservation of mass/matter. We know that they apply in our current universe, they may even have applied in the one to precede ours and the one to precede it. Of course, they might now have.

Oh?
So now you think there has been SEVERAL universes too?
And which one was the first one? Was there a first universe?
And where did that come from?

Face it fool, something doesn't come from nothing. Not happening.

Nope. I really can't say that it is.

Because God snapped his fingers and shattered the law of conservation of mass to create the universe, I suppose? (the argument does work both ways )

No.
Because the "law of conservation" isn't true.
The only problem here arises when you believe in both said law and the big bang.. Cause you can't have both, sonny.

Actually, it is quite likely that the cycle of creation and destruction has been going on for some time (or eternally, that works too)-humans just can not grasp the concept of anything having no beginning. The brain refuses to accept it.

I can accept that concept.. As the very definition of it is God.
And I suggest that you accept Him, Jesus that is, too. (Or you will end up in hell.)

And sorry, but you can no longer believe in an eternal universe without opposing your beloved scientist priesthood..
As the idea of an eternal universe cannot be combined with their "big rip" theories that they, as always with their silly theories, claim to have "proof" of.
(They simply never show any of said "proof"..)

Is it possible? Yes. Is it plausible? I'll not go past saying that it is possible.

Why is it not plausible?
I mean, in contrast to God creating the universe, could you even consider below theory possible?

In the beginning there was nothing.
And behold, all of a sudden: Without cause, and from nothing, something came to be.
Something proceeds to explode, and (slowly but still) forms an orderly universe, yet again without any cause.

^ This is your beliefs, and they are nothing short of religious.
A nonsense religion of satan.

There's a reason that I'm always saying that non-theists and agnostics are correct. In their reasoning, the existence of a god or divine creator is either irrelevant, else unable to be proven or disproven. Extremists are never right (Yes, I myself am included in the category of "extremist").

If God created the universe (and He did) then I'd say that His existance is anything BUT irrelevant..
Wouldn't you?

Religion tosses logic and reason out the window--it is the nature of the beast. Whenever religion is concerned, it will always come down to personal, biased ideals.

Exactly, so let go of your religion of science and let Jesus Christ think for you...
That's why "my" arguments and my logic here are so immensly superior to yours, because it's not of me, but of Jesus.

Ever heard of Miller and Urey? Something about creating RNA from conditions similar to those of the Earth about 36 billion years ago. (Yes, the experiment was slightly flawed, but it does raise some interesting points)

They know what kind of "RNA" that were around 36 billion years ago, do they?
When scientists claim the earth is only 4.5 billion years old..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_earth

And even if the earth would have been that old, and RNA had existed, how could they ever know what it looked like that long ago?
A time machine?

Scientists claim they can't even extract DNA from dead dinosaurs, and they're (according to them) only a few million years old..
Of course, this is all rubbish as the earth is only 6000years old but it proves my point that scientists are a bunch of liars with too much belief, and too little fact.

Face it, your so-called "Christianity" is nothing but an oppressive and evil cult, brainwashing you into believing nonsense.

Again, it works both ways, you know.

Why do you hate Christianity? I CHOOSE it. You can't force a man to come to God.
You are being told what to regard as truth by a bunch of men.. nobody has ever done that to me. (So how could I be brainwashed by anyone?)
I have God & His Holy Word telling me what to do, I don't heed the vain imaginations of some priesthood of satan like you.

NOW STOP BOTHERING US WITH YOUR DUMB THEORIES AND ACCEPT JESUS CHRIST AS YOUR PERSONAL SAVIOUR!

[SalvationSeeker]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

What dangerous animals would that be? A hedgehog with an attitude problem? An overly ambitious ferret? It's not like you have mountain lions, timber wolves, buck negros and grizzle bears over there.

Don't mind him, my brother.
He's a liar, as home defense hasn't been recognized as a valid reason to get a gun in the unsaved kingdom since 1946..
So unless Omerta is lying about his age (to the extreme, I might add), he is lying about his license.

This child has only seen guns in computer games, and now he dreams, and lies, of having one.
And Jesus doesn't like it one bit!

[Kazoo]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

Here we go again.. theory this and theory that, no proof whatsover.
THEORETICALLY (since no proof seems to be needed) you could be a talking frog and the world a chunk of jello.

Eh... no. That would go against biology, geology, physics, and probably a good number of other fields of science.

Please, supply some proof of your silly BELIEFS (ie theories) or atleast recognise that they are just that: beliefs.
And silly beliefs at that.

Well now, I have, actually.

And you know this HOW?
You're simply pulling all of this out of your sinning behind...

Within the first three miliseconds after the Big Bang, the extreme heats caused five of the eleven dimensions to uncurl. These dimensions, time, height, length, width, and circular girth, are likewise observable above a quantum level in our universe. Before the Big Bang, these dimensions were curled up, thus only affecting the universe on a quantum level. I other words, there was no time, no width, height, etc. It was, in essence, a zero-dimensional plane. Does it really sound like I am pulling this out of my ass to you?

Let me get this right: Now, when your "laws" are no longer suitable, they no longer apply?
Frankly, this is getting quite laughable.

See above.

Also, if there are circumstances in which these laws do not apply, then how could you ever use them to try and disprove God's existance?
Or use the same to try and disprove that God created the universe? (Such as the deviant Dawkins tries to do.)
You cannot, and trying to do so would be hypocrisy of the highest order..
But then, scientists are a bunch of fanatic & illogical hypocrites.

Damn it, will you listen to what I am saying? I am not trying to disprove the existence of your god. I am proffering solutions to your proposed questions--if you don't want answers, then don't ask.

So basically, you admit that you really DON'T KNOW?

No, I do not. Not a soul on our planet does. Peering back into a previous universe really isn't as easy as turning to a chapter in a science text book.

And all science and scientists EVERYWHERE claim for fact that nothing can be removed nor created.. It's one of the most basic "facts" of science.
Are you now saying that they are completely wrong?

If they are referring to not only our current universe, but all preceding, then yes. However, the laws of conservation of mass/matter are only and have only ever been applied to this universe.

If science cannot be trusted on that, and if that law is not really a law all of a sudden, then how can you trust it ("science") to be right on anything else?
It must required quite a HUGE amount of blind belief..

If you are not going to read what I post, then kindly do not reply. I am not speaking of this universe, but of a past one. Ergo, today's laws are rendered irrelevant.

But you still claim to know, fool.

Only the fool or the master "explains" with any sureness the whole meaning of that which is beneath the obvious. The latter, the master, is not apt to do so except to those absolutely known to and trusted by him. The former, the fool, provides authority freely--which is about what it is worth.

Undoubtedly, I fall closer to the fool's end of the spectrum, though I recognize that much of what I claim is only theory and may well be false. You, however, claim it with total authority and distribute it freely, with or without incentive or purpose. Yes, I am a fool and I will admit that fact, but where does this place you?

If you believe that the universe created itself from NOTHING, without anything to cause said action.. Then you believe in action without cause.
So it is very relevant.

Again, I do not believe in action without cause and I must again ask you to refrain from replying if you do not read my posts.

Oh?
So now you think there has been SEVERAL universes too?
And which one was the first one? Was there a first universe?
And where did that come from?

It is a possibility, so is the multiverse theory, so is religion. You claim validity from a book, and I from my sciences; the two forces locked in eternal combat, both ultimately falling, decrepit and desolate.

Face it fool, something doesn't come from nothing. Not happening.

And yet you claim that God snapped his fingers and created the universe out of nothing. Either you have defeated yourself out of ignorance, stupidity, or of your own intention. Take your pick.

No.
Because the "law of conservation" isn't true.
The only problem here arises when you believe in both said law and the big bang.. Cause you can't have both, sonny.

And yet I recall you saying, quite recently:

Face it fool, something doesn't come from nothing. Not happening.

I can accept that concept.. As the very definition of it is God.
And I suggest that you accept Him, Jesus that is, too. (Or you will end up in hell.)

I can live with that, thank you. However, I find it incredibly unlikely that you have the slightest understanding of the ura of eternity.

And sorry, but you can no longer believe in an eternal universe without opposing your beloved scientist priesthood..
As the idea of an eternal universe cannot be combined with their "big rip" theories that they, as always with their silly theories, claim to have "proof" of.
(They simply never show any of said "proof"..)

I have never stated my personal beliefs on this particular subject. I am only offering possible solutions to your questions. If you don't like it, don't ask them.

Why is it not plausible?
I mean, in contrast to God creating the universe, could you even consider below theory possible?

I did not say that it wasn't plausible, I said that I would not recognize it as such due to my personal biases and convictions.

In the beginning there was nothing.
And behold, all of a sudden: Without cause, and from nothing, something came to be.
Something proceeds to explode, and (slowly but still) forms an orderly universe, yet again without any cause.

^ This is your beliefs, and they are nothing short of religious.
A nonsense religion of satan.

All the same, they parallel your argument in all aspects, begetting divine intervention.

If God created the universe (and He did) then I'd say that His existance is anything BUT irrelevant..
Wouldn't you?

No, I do believe that it would be quite irrelevant. Does god play a part in my personal life? Does it advise me in personal matters? Send a plague for every immoral decision I make in my life? No. Said divine being plays absolutely no part in one's life. Humans tend to only care about what affects them personally. Put the two together, and you have an irrelevant ascended being.

Exactly, so let go of your religion of science and let Jesus Christ think for you...

Do not ever again tell me to let another being think for me.

That's why "my" arguments and my logic here are so immensly superior to yours, because it's not of me, but of Jesus.

To claim that one's logic is superior to another's is flawed in its roots. Logic is a relative and otherwise subjective term that has no concrete definition nor means of expression

They know what kind of "RNA" that were around 36 billion years ago, do they?
When scientists claim the earth is only 4.5 billion years old..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_earth

It's a typo, no need to make a fuss. I was trying to convey the age of approx. 3.6 billion years (though now that I think about it, I believe that that is actually the time that water appeared on the planet...).

And even if the earth would have been that old, and RNA had existed, how could they ever know what it looked like that long ago?
A time machine?

Strands of DNA and RNA are constant--they will never change in beings on this planet for if they do, then they shall become an entirely new genetic material. Regardless, it still shows that primitive life could have evolved from nothing more than inanimate elements.

Scientists claim they can't even extract DNA from dead dinosaurs, and they're (according to them) only a few million years old..
Of course, this is all rubbish as the earth is only 6000years old but it proves my point that scientists are a bunch of liars with too much belief, and too little fact.

Can they extract DNA? Yes. Can they extract any that is fully intact? No. It deteriorates over time and thus becomes useless to the observer. A rather irrelevant point, if I might add.

Why do you hate Christianity? I CHOOSE it. You can't force a man to come to God.

I do not hate Christianity, though nor do I support it. I have not attacked your religion in my time here, only ever provided possible answers to your questions and given factual references.

You are being told what to regard as truth by a bunch of men.. nobody has ever done that to me. (So how could I be brainwashed by anyone?)
I have God & His Holy Word telling me what to do, I don't heed the vain imaginations of some priesthood of satan like you.

You do know that the Bible was written by some forty authors (all mortal men), correct?

NOW STOP BOTHERING US WITH YOUR DUMB THEORIES AND ACCEPT JESUS CHRIST AS YOUR PERSONAL SAVIOUR!

For the third time in this post, if you do not wish one to provide an answer that you deem unsuitable, then do not propose a question in the first place. Problem solved.

[SalvationSeeker]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

Eh... no. That would go against biology, geology, physics, and probably a good number of other fields of science.

Just like your theories go against all the laws of physics you mean?
Has the beam in your eye really made you this blind?

Well now, I have, actually.

Supplied proof?
No, you've done nothing but supplied yet more words.
Your word is not proof in any way.

Within the first three miliseconds after the Big Bang, the extreme heats caused five of the eleven dimensions to uncurl. These dimensions, time, height, length, width, and circular girth, are likewise observable above a quantum level in our universe.

So the fact that there is time, height, length, width.. and so on.
Proves the big bang?

And if that's not what you're saying, then I fail to see your point.
You claim some absurdity, and then say that the universe is not like that today.
Yes, the universe is not like that today, and your absurd theory has nothing to support it..

I thought you practioners of the science religion claimed you needed proof to believe in something..
I'd say it's getting very obvious to everyone reading this that you need no proof, and have no proof, but only your own BELIEFS.

Before the Big Bang, these dimensions were curled up, thus only affecting the universe on a quantum level. I other words, there was no time, no width, height, etc. It was, in essence, a zero-dimensional plane. Does it really sound like I am pulling this out of my ass to you?

Yes, you're pulling this out of your behind.
Because you would know this (for fact) HOW? You don't, and you can't.
It's a THEORY. Not fact.

Damn it, will you listen to what I am saying? I am not trying to disprove the existence of your god. I am proffering solutions to your proposed questions--if you don't want answers, then don't ask.

In case you haven't noticed, you're not doing a very good job answering anything..
You keep spouting your theories, even though they have a logical hole a mile wide.

No, I do not. Not a soul on our planet does. Peering back into a previous universe really isn't as easy as turning to a chapter in a science text book.

SO THEN JUST HOW CAN YOU CLAIM TO KNOW WHAT THE UNIVERSE LOOKED LIKE BEFORE THIS BIG BANG?

Really, do you actually read what you write?

If they are referring to not only our current universe, but all preceding, then yes. However, the laws of conservation of mass/matter are only and have only ever been applied to this universe.

Right, once again, your laws only apply when they suit your theories.
But let's see:

You have no proof whatsoever there has ever been a previous universe.
You have no proof whatsoever the "laws" of physics would have been different there.
And there is nothing to support either.

Also, almost no scientist believe in any previous universe..
Let's say they are wrong and you are right (of course, you're both wrong, but theoretically.) if you cannot trust them to be right on that, how can you trust them on anything else?

You trust them on the theories THAT YOU LIKE, and that's all there is to it: Pure BELIEF.

If you are not going to read what I post, then kindly do not reply. I am not speaking of this universe, but of a past one. Ergo, today's laws are rendered irrelevant.

See above.
If you don't have any proof whatsoever, nothing to support your theory, and really DON'T KNOW.
Then kindly: Do not pass off your silly theories as truth.

Undoubtedly, I fall closer to the fool's end of the spectrum, though I recognize that much of what I claim is only theory and may well be false. You, however, claim it with total authority and distribute it freely, with or without incentive or purpose. Yes, I am a fool and I will admit that fact, but where does this place you?

All this requires that this Dave is right of course..
I see that you have gotten yourself yet another teacher that tells you what your itching ears want to hear. (2 Timothy 4:3)

I'll tell you what's fool and not here: He's a fool, and you're a fool. Case closed.
I don't speak of my own about the truth, but I quote what God says in His Holy Word, and if you have a problem with God's Word, then take it up with God.

Again, I do not believe in action without cause and I must again ask you to refrain from replying if you do not read my posts.

Belief in the big bang theory (with the universe having a beginning) requires belief in action without cause.
Case closed.

And he who believes in an eternal universe, or many universes (but that had no beginning) but cannot accept the idea of an eternal God is a hypocrite.

It is a possibility, so is the multiverse theory, so is religion. You claim validity from a book, and I from my sciences; the two forces locked in eternal combat, both ultimately falling, decrepit and desolate.

God is true, and every man a liar. (Romans 3:4)

And yet you claim that God snapped his fingers and created the universe out of nothing. Either you have defeated yourself out of ignorance, stupidity, or of your own intention. Take your pick.

No, like I said, only if the law of conservation was true. But it's not.
And also, with God there, there would be eternal and infinite energy to create from. (God Himself.)
For it is as the scripture says, God is also IN the creation.

So with God you have:
Cause, energy, and existance.

Without God you have:
Total nonexistance and no cause whatsoever.

Anyone opting for the second is in no position to call anyone stupid.

And yet I recall you saying, quite recently:
"Something doesn't come from nothing. Not happening."

Yes, something doesn't come from nothing.
But God was always there, and thus not created.
And as for the creation, it came from God, and thus it didn't come from nothing.
Nice try.

I can live with that, thank you. However, I find it incredibly unlikely that you have the slightest understanding of the ura of eternity.

No, you're right on that one.
As I'm afraid I don't even know what the "ura of eternity" is.

I have never stated my personal beliefs on this particular subject. I am only offering possible solutions to your questions. If you don't like it, don't ask them.

Yeah, and you don't believe in said "solutions" at all..
That's why you push them so desperately.

I did not say that it wasn't plausible, I said that I would not recognize it as such due to my personal biases and convictions.

Atleast you admit that you're a biased and very convicted satan-worshipper...

All the same, they parallel your argument in all aspects, begetting divine intervention.

I'd be willing to listen if you could actually prove any of your silly theories, but you can't. (cause they're not true and contradict themselves.)
Really, GOD is the only thing that makes any sense.

No, I do believe that it would be quite irrelevant. Does god play a part in my personal life?

Yes.

Does it advise me in personal matters? Send a plague for every immoral decision I make in my life? No.

No.
But God will decide where you spend eternity in the afterlife... Eternal torture, or eternal bliss.
I'd call that pretty damn relevant!

Said divine being plays absolutely no part in one's life. Humans tend to only care about what affects them personally. Put the two together, and you have an irrelevant ascended being.

See above.

Do not ever again tell me to let another being think for me.

Let Jesus Christ think for you.

To claim that one's logic is superior to another's is flawed in its roots. Logic is a relative and otherwise subjective term that has no concrete definition nor means of expression

Logic is absolute.
And it is nothing but "this causes/leads to this". Very simple.
Of course, one needs to have knowledge to use it correctly, but logic in itself is absolute, it's completely absolute.

It's a typo, no need to make a fuss. I was trying to convey the age of approx. 3.6 billion years (though now that I think about it, I believe that that is actually the time that water appeared on the planet...).

Yeah, you don't need to remind us that you're confused. We know, but Jesus can help!

Strands of DNA and RNA are constant--they will never change in beings on this planet for if they do, then they shall become an entirely new genetic material. Regardless, it still shows that primitive life could have evolved from nothing more than inanimate elements.

They don't even exist so that theory goes right out the window.

Can they extract DNA? Yes. Can they extract any that is fully intact? No. It deteriorates over time and thus becomes useless to the observer. A rather irrelevant point, if I might add.

Exactly, it would deteriorate (if it existed) and thus they cannot truly know if RNA/DNA is truly constant or not, now could they?

I do not hate Christianity, though nor do I support it. I have not attacked your religion in my time here, only ever provided possible answers to your questions and given factual references.

You called Christianity evil. If that is not persecution, then what is?

You do know that the Bible was written by some forty authors (all mortal men), correct?

God used them as typewriters. Very much like I use this computer to talk to you..
But for that, you don't think it's a computer that wrote this, you don't credit the computer for it, now do you?

For the third time in this post, if you do not wish one to provide an answer that you deem unsuitable, then do not propose a question in the first place. Problem solved.

Honestly, I'd prefer it if you'd shut up and accept Jesus Christ, yes.
This discussion drags on for too long when there is really nothing to discuss:
You are wrong. End of story.

Praise Jesus!

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

Was there a worldwide cataclysmic occurrence like evolutionists say?

Of course there was, but evolutionists are wrong (again) about how it happened. It wasn't a cataclysmic ice age due to the earth getting too far away from the sun. IT WAS NOAH'S FLOOD! The flood best explains things like fossils and underground oil which require quick, high pressure in order to form.

II Peter 3:5: on the evolutionist:

"For this they willingly are ignorant of,"
II Peter 3:5-6: What are they willingly ignorant of?

That the old world and our current world were divided by Noah's flood.

" that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby THE WORLD THAT THEN WAS, being overflowed with water, PERISHED:"
II Peter 3:7: What about the world we have now? Will it be destroyed too?

Yes it will, but not by a worldwide flood. Next time, by fire to be completely destroyed.

"But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." - 2 Peter 3:5


Are you saying there was an "old world" and a "new world"?

The Bible says so. The evolutionist incorrectly calls the old world, "prehistoric" when it should be called something like, "pre-flood" or "old world". [1] The Bible clearly distinguishes between the old time and the time in which we now live:

"Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in OLD TIME" -Joshua 24:2
"[God] spared not the OLD WORLD, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;" -2 Peter 2:5

"I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood" -Joshua 24:3

"put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD." -Joshua 24:14

"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood" -Joshua 24:15

"Hast thou marked the old way which wicked men have trodden? Which were cut down out of time, whose foundation was overflown with a flood: Which said unto God, Depart from us: and what can the Almighty do for them?" -Job 22:15-17

What about the giant animals and bones we find in the archaeological record?

The Bible says that there were giants in the earth in those days.

There were giants in the earth in those days. Genesis 6:4
Well, what about the fact that the fossils were made suddenly?

The flood was sudden.

"For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away." Matthew 24:38-39
What about enough pressure to fossilize?

The windows of heaven opened and there was a continual down pouring forty days. The flood was so great it covered EVERY mountain!

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. Genesis 7:11-12

[Kazoo]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

Just like your theories go against all the laws of physics you mean?
Has the beam in your eye really made you this blind?

If you do not read my posts, then kindly do not reply. I am talking about multiple universes with differing quantum laws.

Supplied proof?
No, you've done nothing but supplied yet more words.
Your word is not proof in any way.

I was actually leaning towards recognizing that mine are just beliefs, but, sure, that works too.

So the fact that there is time, height, length, width.. and so on.
Proves the big bang?

No.

And if that's not what you're saying, then I fail to see your point.
You claim some absurdity, and then say that the universe is not like that today.
Yes, the universe is not like that today, and your absurd theory has nothing to support it..

I thought you practioners of the science religion claimed you needed proof to believe in something..
I'd say it's getting very obvious to everyone reading this that you need no proof, and have no proof, but only your own BELIEFS.

I apologize, but you are really testing my patience here. Do you have some odd impediment that prevents you from comprehending plain English, or do you just choose to ignore what I am saying?

Yes, you're pulling this out of your behind.
Because you would know this (for fact) HOW? You don't, and you can't.
It's a THEORY. Not fact.

I have never claimed it to be a damned fact. I have even repeatedly gone to the point of stating that, all in all, the theories I am putting forward probably have about as much credence as your creationist views.

In case you haven't noticed, you're not doing a very good job answering anything..
You keep spouting your theories, even though they have a logical hole a mile wide.

1. Logic is subjective. Never argue towards its validity in a debate.
2. I have answered your questions to a "T." You choose not to read them.

SO THEN JUST HOW CAN YOU CLAIM TO KNOW WHAT THE UNIVERSE LOOKED LIKE BEFORE THIS BIG BANG?

Really, do you actually read what you write?

What part of "I am proffering solutions to your proposed questions" do you not understand? I tried not to use big words, just for you, and yet you still have trouble comprehending what I say.

Beyond this point, I'm just going to ignore all of the ill-formed replies as they can likely be answered with something previously stated in this post.

You called Christianity evil. If that is not persecution, then what is?

Quote me on it, for I fail to recall ever uttering such a thing.

Look, if you would like to stop tipping the bottle back quite so far and actually read what I am saying, then I would be happy to continue this discussion. Until then, however, it is likely best that it come to an end.

[Brother Temperance]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

Quote me on it, for I fail to recall ever uttering such a thing.

Face it, your so-called "Christianity" is nothing but an oppressive and evil cult, brainwashing you into believing nonsense.

If we can't trust you about what you yourself said a few days ago, why on earth should we trust you on the creation of the Universe?

[SalvationSeeker]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

If you do not read my posts, then kindly do not reply. I am talking about multiple universes with differing quantum laws.

I'm reading your posts, it's just that what you're doing is just that..
Whenever something is no longer suitable to push your newest madness, you discard it.
And this has always been the way of scientists and their supporters.

Is it even plausible that there has been previous universes, in which, the (false) laws of physics does not exist..
But more importantly, universes that, frankly, seem illogical in nature.

This theory is simply the last desperate imagination that you cling to, all in a desperate attempt to deny the truth of Creationism.
This "multiple universes with different quantum laws before the big bang"...
It's pure hogwash, an excuse of a theory you use to avoid total defeat in this debate, and everyone who isn't blind will recognize it as such.

I was actually leaning towards recognizing that mine are just beliefs, but, sure, that works too.

That's better.
Cause yes.. they're nothing but beliefs. Vain imaginations of man, given to him by satan.
You better give them up or you'll find yourself in hellfire.

I apologize, but you are really testing my patience here. Do you have some odd impediment that prevents you from comprehending plain English, or do you just choose to ignore what I am saying?

No, of course not.
But then I fail to see the point in even typing all that (theoretical) rubbish out..
I was simply trying to find some kind of reason and purpose to your befuddled ramblings. Sorry.

I have never claimed it to be a damned fact. I have even repeatedly gone to the point of stating that, all in all, the theories I am putting forward probably have about as much credence as your creationist views.

You speak things like it would be absolute truth, and you even keep doing so above..
So it's a little hard to believe that you actually recognize that you don't believe they are facts.
It's obvious that you actually believe in the rubbish you put forward here.

Furthermore, don't compare our views.
I have God's Word and logic supporting mine, while you have nothing.
Praise Jesus!

1. Logic is subjective. Never argue towards its validity in a debate.

Are you joking with me?
And so now you don't even recognize logic?
You will do ANYTHING to avoid admitting you are wrong, won't you?
Logic is absolute, as a logical chain is either valid or invalid: No exceptions.

That people have different opinons on if it is or not, does not change the truth of the matter, if it is valid or no:
It only shows who's logical and who's not really logical.

What you're doing is like claiming math is subjective or relative. It's absolute, and that's the end of that.

2. I have answered your questions to a "T." You choose not to read them.

And I've read them.
But the problem is, as I said, that they are illogical and contradict both themselves, and other parts of your religion. (ie "science".)
Seriously, stop acting like a crybaby claiming that nobody reads what you write, as I'm sure everyone in this thread has read it, and I've answered all of it too.
How old are you, anyways?

What part of "I am proffering solutions to your proposed questions" do you not understand? I tried not to use big words, just for you, and yet you still have trouble comprehending what I say.

Beyond this point, I'm just going to ignore all of the ill-formed replies as they can likely be answered with something previously stated in this post.

Quote me on it, for I fail to recall ever uttering such a thing.

Look, if you would like to stop tipping the bottle back quite so far and actually read what I am saying, then I would be happy to continue this discussion. Until then, however, it is likely best that it come to an end.

Aww.. did I hurt your feelings, jennifer?
I'll repeat myself:

You speak things like it would be absolute truth, and you even keep doing so above.
So it's a little hard to believe that you actually recognize that you don't believe they are facts.
It's obvious that you actually believe in the rubbish you put forward here.

So I completely understand what you're saying, it's just that, as with almost everything else you've said here, it's not true.

[Kazoo]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

If we can't trust you about what you yourself said a few days ago, why on earth should we trust you on the creation of the Universe?

Out of context, admittedly that is true. However, if you look at it in context, I was pointing out that the argument worded by Salvation Seeker could easily work both ways and by no means assaulting Christianity.

And so now you don't even recognize logic?
You will do ANYTHING to avoid admitting you are wrong, won't you?
Logic is absolute, as a logical chain is either valid or invalid: No exceptions.

Fair enough then, here's a hypothetical situation relying on logic.

I find it logical to systematically exterminate Jews as they have spread like a racial tuberculosis. Prove my* logic to be flawed or otherwise incorrect.

*I only say "my" for the sake of keeping up with the hypothetical situation. This does, by no means, reflect my actual views on the matter.

[SalvationSeeker]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

Fair enough then, here's a hypothetical situation relying on logic.

I find it logical to systematically exterminate Jews as they have spread like a racial tuberculosis. Prove my* logic to be flawed or otherwise incorrect.

*I only say "my" for the sake of keeping up with the hypothetical situation. This does, by no means, reflect my actual views on the matter.

Where is the logic in your example?
In that example: you arrive at the decision to exterminate them by using your emotions, not your logic. Racism is not a cause based in logic, but emotion.
It would only be logical to arrive at the decision to exterminate them if you had reason based in logic for it. As a logical solution to a problem, for instance.
It is predictable (if you use logic) that a racist might arrive at such a decision as yours, but the decision in your example is not one of logic.
So you may find it logical (ie CALL it logic) but that doesn't make it logic.

So something like this would be more appropriate:
Situation: You want a high paying job but there are none available.
Observation: Jews possess many of these jobs.
Logical solution: Kill all those joos, there will be high-paying jobs available.

The logic here is (obviously) in that if there are nobody holding these jobs, they would be available..
Their death will cause available jobs. Thus, if you want available jobs:
Kill the holders of said jobs (money-pinching joos in this example) and the jobs should be available.
Simple.

Your seem to think that somehow moral objections to kike killing would make such logic invalid?
But morals have nothing to do with logic, after all.. even sinners can use logic.


And like you, I don't really support kike killing either, atleast not for these reasons..
But one cannot deny that they should atleast be punished for killing our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.