Jump to content


Photo

Frdb Retard Farm....


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
102 replies to this topic

#41 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 19 May 2009 - 01:53 PM

I think you’re pretty accurate in your assessment, but the atheist posing as an agnostic is a safety valve that atheists gravitate towards because no admitted atheist can live as an actual atheist (materialist) in reality.

Once atheists failed to convince themselves what a real atheist was, they invented terms like “hard” atheist and “soft” atheist (which are realy agnostics).  :lol:

View Post

Yes, they're equivocal by nature, and theists of all varieties will jump on the contradictions of atheism, so that contributes motivation. You also see "hard and soft" agnostics. "It is impossible to know" vs. "I don't know". The handiest way to draw the line may be "Philosophical Naturalism". An honest agnostic would not exclude evidence, right?

I also left out pseudomoles, those who are so weak, so easily intimidated, or so responsive to "peer pressure" that they conceal theist opinions in order to pass for "intellectuals". That's the only kind of mole they ever have to worry about from our side. There are moles back and forth between superstitious atheists and (allegedly) non-superstitious atheists as well, as one would expect.

It is only possible to be so accurate with terms, for there's really no such thing as non-superstitious atheism; it is an unattainable "ideal" they attempt to achieve and lie to themselves about their success, as we've seen time after time. These people are double-minded, and to describe all possible combinations every time one speaks of them is just impractical. Reading so much extra detail would be a chore also.

Edited by CTD, 19 May 2009 - 01:54 PM.


#42 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 19 May 2009 - 09:36 PM

While I am reluctant to engage in polyforum discussions, there seems to be an interest. And this one's just too easy. I don't even have to edit out any foul words.

http://www.freeratio...t=265210&page=6

I know this is not earthshaking news, but man those tards at EFT make me laugh!  They have a thread going on railing about Criticizing Evolution, and Adam_777, de_skudd, and CTD are all declaring victory because no evolutionist posted there.


The thread's easy enough to find.
http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2252

What cannot be found are the alleged declarations of victory.

Adam has said "The silence that this thread received is telling."

D_S has said "The correct answer would be no. But, due to the fact that no evolutionists have come in here to directly address your questions speaks volumes Adam."

The thread is just shy of a month old. In four weeks, not a peep. No back-up at all for the policy of whining that creationists criticize evolutionism. The policy doesn't look to be justified, but it won't change.

And myself? Here's my "declaration of victory". It's my only post in that thread to date.

The complaint has two objectives. Obviously they want to deter criticism. They also want to (at one level or another) bait creationists into trying to introduce some sort of "religion" into science classes.

View Post

I could be feign charity & say "someone needs to learn English". I won't. Understanding English is not the problem at all.

Nearly all of us have outstanding questions for evolutionists. My top three* would be

1. Show me the "theory of evolution".

2. Show me real world cases "natural selection" being used successfully to make predictions.

3. Name three YEC men of science from the 1800s who converted to evolutionism based on evidence.

* The first two are links, explaining in advance what constitutes an unacceptable response. The common non-answers are debunked and dismissed. The standard response to the third is to simply ignore it. Although links are provided, if there is any response to these at the other location, it will almost certainly be standard. Evolutionism is not a very innovative religion, after all.

Edited by CTD, 19 May 2009 - 09:39 PM.


#43 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 20 May 2009 - 12:23 AM

The whole place is one big comedy showcase. Pick any thread at random and the odds are you'll hit a FSTDT worthy quote. They're especially cute when they try to use big words to sound 'sciency'.


And I knew FSTDT was going to get mentioned as well. Your sister (Adam's sister) seems to think God told me some things. Not really. On this issue it just the norm because when a group acts and thinks alike. They also comment alike as well. So when:

Debate tactics don't work-try name calling. If name calling don't work-try stereotyping. If stereotyping don't work- try equivacating. If equivacating don't work-try personal attacks. etc... And when all else fails-cuss them out.

It's the flow chart for proving evolution scientifically, even though it's not in the scientific method. But it's a secret :P . If you can add to it, feel free.

It's easy to predict what's next when the flow is always in the same direction (from bad to worse). How quick one gets to the end depends on their starting point and hatred towards the ones whom they debate.

The reason so many get banned is because that flow hardly ever goes in the other direction. So when we ask someone to stop doing something,and they contiue, or take it to the next level. We know it's only going to get worse because the flow chart of evolution hate can have only one ending. So we cut the flow before it gets to that point.

Now why they cannot see this is beyond me. But what they fail to realize is that this ministry is like a church. No church is going to put up with someone telling lies, spreading gossip, destroying members faith foundation, calling people nmes, mocking God, scoffing at the Bible, and cussing people out. And neither will we.

And by the way OCAS, going around an IP block is hacking. Just as if I would have done it at your forums.

#44 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 20 May 2009 - 06:37 AM

This is the first time I heard of FSTDT. It's interesting to see how intolerant our very benevolent and merely 'truth seeking' friends are. No bias on their part, just the facts. :P

I would formulate a hypothesis, as to attempt a disclosure of why their patterns of behavior persist, but I'd only do it to sound 'sciency'. <_<

#45 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 20 May 2009 - 08:18 AM

Maybe our friends at FRDB can start a thread for us based on this question:

These are two good examples of critically looking at evolution speculation based on evolution biases. Can any evolutionist give good reasons for why evolution shouldn't be criticized, if the criticism is just and evidence based?

View Post

I'm just trying to help them regain some composure, since they've digressed into eye-poking mode over there.

http://www.freeratio...849#post5942849

#46 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 20 May 2009 - 06:40 PM

This is a great post and I relate. I was at a forum that had a mix of people including a few Christians. Even Christians who believe in abortion and G*y marriage- go figure. We debate anything and everything including G*y marriage and politics. What I found is nothing makes the left madder than challenging evolution. G*y marriage is second and calling Obama the messiah is third. But G*y marriage is a distant second. You get called a bigot a lot for believing in traditional marriage but I can handle that.

What happens when you debate evolution is that they start to swarm, each going through a mocking cycle. If you make a spelling mistake you would think you were the worst idiot in the world. Then they start to follow you around and make make negative remarks about everything you post on other topics. I literally missed sleep some nights.

I made some mistakes like I called the activity gangbanging. The worse mistake I made was being tenacious. I kept going and would not let them intimidate me. There are 2 Ph.D debating me; one in Biochemisty and other Chemical Engineering. One is a researcher and the other is a professor. The researcher was actually the best most respectful opposition I had. If I could debate him alone it would be fun. The other I should have related to because I am a Chemical Engineer. He got in jerk mode and would jump into an alias and bang me with all kinds of personal attacks. When I challenged him in things like Maxwell Boltzman (statistical thermodynamics) and Quantum physics he wouldn't answer. Those who couldn't understand the science just thumped with personal attacks. The moderator is a lawyer and an atheist. He had some amazing posts and was a very good debater. The only problem I had with him was what he allowed to happen.

But after all that I learned something. This is a spiritual battle. At the core of any belief system or world view is how life began. Therefore the core to atheism is evolution. IMO evolution is advanced primarily as an advancement of atheism. Creation screams of a wonderful caring God who created life in great diversity. Evolution steels that glory. Anyway that is why I learning to debate evolution. I want God glorified and I also want to show those that I witness to that evolution/atheism is not a firm foundation.

#47 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 20 May 2009 - 06:45 PM

I went the web site and looked at the evolution debate. Not much of a debate. What struck me is that people didn't link sources or add any real science to the debate. It was all opinion. It was rather sad.

#48 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 20 May 2009 - 07:01 PM

I know that civility has to be enforced. I also believe that we need more atheist debating. This may be a bad example but Han was on this board for a long time. He probably should have been given a time out - a temporary ban.

Let them cool off and allow them to come back on a short leash. Just a thought.

Bruce

#49 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 21 May 2009 - 06:23 AM

I know that civility has to be enforced.  I also believe that we need more atheist debating.  This may be a bad example but Han was on this board for a long time.  He probably should have been given a time out - a temporary ban. 

Let them cool off and allow them to come back on a short leash.  Just a thought.

Bruce

View Post

Thanks for the good posts and thanks for the advice. We'll take it under advisement.

#50 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 21 May 2009 - 09:30 PM

Off topic. The second most controversial subject, a distant second, is G*y marriage. You can not quote Focus on the Family. Say Dr. Dobsen and they stop listen. So I avoided that and rather posted this article.

Tradition marriage from a non-religous web site.

They still called me names but I think it is respectful and represents my position well.

#51 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 22 May 2009 - 12:19 AM

This is the first time I heard of FSTDT. It's interesting to see how intolerant our very benevolent and merely 'truth seeking' friends are. No bias on their part, just the facts. :D

I would formulate a hypothesis, as to attempt a disclosure of why their patterns of behavior persist, but I'd only do it to sound 'sciency'.  :lol:

View Post


The FSTDT motto in my opinion is: If you cannot debunk the creation evidence, destroy the credibility of the messenger.

And through fear mongering, make everyone terrified of even thinking about siding with that group because they will be stereotyped with them.

This is an example of how evolution has to fill in the blank spots, where science does not apply, with peer pressure to keep everyone in line. Either think this way, believe this way, or we will destroy your reputation.

Question for a evolutionist: Name one person that ever came up against the theory of evolution that did not have his reputation attack to the point that he shut up, or if he continued, destroyed. Just one person. What that means is that unto this day he still questions evolution and still is allowed to. And none of his credentials are in question. And no one has slurred him for his difference of opinion.

#52 Guest_Overture_*

Guest_Overture_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 May 2009 - 12:32 AM

Question for a evolutionist: Name one person that ever came up against the theory of evolution that did not have his reputation attack to the point that he shut up, or if he continued, destroyed. Just one person. What that means is that unto this day he still questions evolution and still is allowed to. And none of his credentials are in question. And no one has slurred him for his difference of opinion.

View Post


William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin.

#53 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 22 May 2009 - 01:42 AM

This is a great post and I relate.  I was at a forum that had a mix of people including a few Christians.  Even Christians who believe in abortion and G*y marriage- go figure.  We debate anything and everything including G*y marriage and politics.  What I found is nothing makes the left madder than challenging evolution.  G*y marriage is second and calling Obama the messiah is third.   But G*y marriage is a distant second.  You get called a bigot a lot for believing in traditional marriage but I can handle that.


What walks like a duck and quacks like a duck is a duck. So if you ran into people whom were claiming the walk and talk Christian, and their walk and talk did not match up. What you saw was how this group of anticreationist Bible scoffers are chronic liars. You won't believe some of the people we get here that tell so many bald face lies about what they believe, that their lies actually start contradicting themselves because they cannot remember all the lies they told us.

And we just about fall out of our seats laughing when they do it. You know the lmao rotf type deal. Because they work so hard at convincing you of their lies, and then mess up like that. It's just funny.

What happens when you debate evolution is that they start to swarm, each going through a mocking cycle.  If you make a spelling mistake you would think you were the worst idiot in the world.  Then they start to follow you around and make make negative remarks about everything you post on other topics.  I literally missed sleep some nights.


When they have to attack, using other issues, when you debate them. It shows they cannot debunk your subject. What you have done there is bring up things that make them feel not smug in their beliefs. To get back at you, because it cannot be done scientifically, they find another way. So don't take it personally, they do it because their theory is not holding up to your questioning of it. It's their cry for help basically.

I have yet to have one evolutionist explain to me what makes those attacks scientific. And every time they do it, I point it out how unscientific and unprofessional it really is. They soon quit because I won't let them get away with it, and I will drive that point into the ground if they continue.

I made some mistakes like I called the activity gangbanging.  The worse mistake I made was being tenacious.  I kept going and would not let them intimidate me.  There are 2 Ph.D debating me; one in Biochemisty and other Chemical Engineering. 


Never believe what they claim about their education. I have caught several lying. Even one admitted to it. Remember, some atheist have morals in this area, and some don't. The ones that attack you in every area of your credibility, mock God, and scoff at the Bible. 99.9% of the time are Chronic Liars as well. They will lie about their world view, education, and evolution itself. Most are narcissists-humanist.

One is a researcher and the other is a professor.  The researcher was actually the best most respectful opposition I had.   If I could debate him alone it would be fun.  The other I should have related to because I am a Chemical Engineer.  He got in jerk mode and would jump into an alias and bang me with all kinds of personal attacks.  When I challenged him in things like Maxwell Boltzman (statistical thermodynamics) and Quantum physics he wouldn't answer.   Those who couldn't understand the science just thumped with personal attacks.  The moderator is a lawyer and an atheist.  He had some amazing posts and was a very good debater.  The only problem I had with him was what he allowed to happen.


The one whom is in jerk mode is doing it to cover for his lies to you. If he was who he claimed to be, he would not need to become a jerk. His knowledge would be enough that he would not need to. But resorting to unprofessional tactics when claiming to be a professional to some degree actually reveals the truth.

But after all that I learned something.  This is a spiritual battle.  At the core of any belief system or world view is how life began.  Therefore the core to atheism is evolution.  IMO evolution is advanced primarily as an advancement of atheism.  Creation screams of a wonderful caring God who created life in great diversity. Evolution steels that glory.  Anyway that is why I learning to debate evolution.  I want God glorified and I also want to show those that I witness to that evolution/atheism is not a firm foundation.

View Post


Evolution is the atheist religion.

1) It is based in Pagan religion. And dates all the way back to the time of Moses. Where the Egyptian religions of that time believed that man came from animals. They based their gods on it, and believed that their "ancestors" were half human half animal. And according to which race you were, determined what animal you came from. And in society levels, that determined your power as rulers, or slaves.

2) Darwin had no science degrees. But had one degree in theology. Back in his time, theology taught Biblical literalism. Which means that creation literalism was taught as well. Which means that Darwin, with his theology degree, was actually YEC before he got onto the Beagle.

3) Lyell had no science degrees either. He had a degree to practice being a lawyer. But Lyell was a Bible scoffer. His book on the geological column had his opinions about the Bible written all through it. It was a total attack on YEC. This is why Darwin turned against his literal teaching of God's word.

4) Darwin rejected his literal teaching of God word, which includes YEC. And to get back at the God who made him look stupid for believing the Bible literally. He came up with an idea based on two things.

a) To attack the idea of YEC so that he would not be made to look stupid as Lyell's book pointed out.

B) To use a Pagan religion idea (man came from animals), that is against God's creation as his revenge for this mockery to his pride and intellect that Lyell pointed out.

Example:

What God's word says...................... What evolution theory says.
1) Earth before sun......................... 1) Sun before earth.
2) Oceans before land..................... 2) Land before oceans.
3) Light before sun.......................... 3) Sun before light.
4) Land plants first.......................... 4) Marine life first.
5) Fruit tree before fish.................... 5) Fish before fruit tree.
6) Fish before insects....................... 6) Insects before fish.
7) Plants before sun......................... 7) Sun before plants.
8) Man was created from solid matter. 8) Man evolved from liquid.
9) Bird before reptiles....................... 9) Reptiles before birds.
10) Animals reproduce after kind....... 10) Animals reproduce however they like.

You just don't come up with an idea that is the exact opposite of another idea unless that was your goal. The odds would not work.

But Darwin did not realize that modern science would prove him wrong, and reveal his theory is not scientific at all. I was going to start another thread on this, but I guess putting it here will do for now. And if a new thread needs to be started, it can be.

DNA vs. Evolution:

Every 1% difference in DNA = 30 million differences between the two life forms. Current DNA difference claims is some where between 95% and 98%. Which in numbers would be:

60 million (60,000,000) base pair differences - 150 million (150,000,000) base pair differences.

Now why was narrowing up that number so important to get really close to 100%? When the claim about DNA was first made. Evolutionists did not realize that DNA was so vast. The human genome has over 3 billion base pairs. That was not known when the claim was first made. So saying 87% was okay. But once the genome got mapped, there arose a problem that evolutionists are afraid some one will figure out.

Our closest claimed ancestor "Lucy" is claimed to be 3.2 million years old. She would fall into the 2% range, which most evolutionist would agree upon. But let's do some math.

2% DNA difference = 60 Million differences.
Lucy is claimed to be 3.2 million years old.
That works out to 18.75 million base pair changes per year.
And that works out to 51,369 base pair changes per day.

Now if 2% is to much, cut all those numbers in half for 1% difference and you will see that it still don't work.

Why is this important? Our immune system will attack anything that it deems as foreign to the human body. Animals have the same type reaction in their immune system. So changes this big and this fast would make our immune system attack those changes and we would become very sick, and probably die. As well as any animal would.

This is why 99.9999% of all evolutionists sites hide the actual genome number that the 1-5% difference represents. It reveals that evolution, in the claimed time-line, does not work. Even with millions of years.

Also, this would mean that the fusion of chromosome #2 causes 60 million things to change in our DNA (base pair changes). A deadly change at that. And if evolutionists try an claim our immune system was suppressed while this was going on. Then I can list several other problems as our bodies would be attacked by everything imaginable, and if we could not fight it with our immune system. We would die. So that does not work either.

So basically, evolution gets debunked by their own findings and claims that were wrong.

#54 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 22 May 2009 - 01:52 AM

William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin.

View Post


More modern is what I should have said. Back in the day of Kelvin being against evolution was allowed because it was not considered a true fact back then.

Let's say since it has graduated to a "scientific theory". Which I'm not sure how many years that would involve.

#55 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 22 May 2009 - 09:24 AM

What walks like a duck and quacks like a duck is a duck. So if you ran into people whom were claiming the walk and talk Christian, and their walk and talk did not match up. What you saw was how this group of anticreationist Bible scoffers are chronic liars. You won't believe some of the people we get here that tell so many bald face lies about what they believe, that their lies actually start contradicting themselves because they cannot remember all the lies they told us.

And we just about fall out of our seats laughing when they do it. You know the lmao rotf type deal. Because they work so hard at convincing you of their lies, and then mess up like that. It's just funny.
When they have to attack, using other issues, when you debate them. It shows they cannot debunk your subject. What you have done there is bring up things that make them feel not smug in their beliefs. To get back at you, because it cannot be done scientifically, they find another way. So don't take it personally, they do it because their theory is not holding up to your questioning of it. It's their cry for help basically.

I have yet to have one evolutionist explain to me what makes those attacks scientific. And every time they do it, I point it out how unscientific and unprofessional it really is. They soon quit because I won't let them get away with it, and I will drive that point into the ground if they continue.
Never believe what they claim about their education. I have caught several lying. Even one admitted to it. Remember, some atheist have morals in this area, and some don't. The ones that attack you in every area of your credibility, mock God, and scoff at the Bible. 99.9% of the time are Chronic Liars as well. They will lie about their world view, education, and evolution itself. Most are narcissists-humanist.
The one whom is in jerk mode is doing it to cover for his lies to you. If he was who he claimed to be, he would not need to become a jerk. His knowledge would be enough that he would not need to. But resorting to unprofessional tactics when claiming to be a professional to some degree actually reveals the truth.
Evolution is the atheist religion.

1) It is based in Pagan religion. And dates all the way back to the time of Moses. Where the Egyptian religions of that time believed that man came from animals. They based their gods on it, and believed that their "ancestors" were half human half animal. And according to which race you were, determined what animal you came from. And in society levels, that determined your power as rulers, or slaves.

2) Darwin had no science degrees. But had one degree in theology. Back in his time, theology taught Biblical literalism. Which means that creation literalism was taught as well. Which means that Darwin, with his theology degree, was actually YEC before he got onto the Beagle.

3) Lyell had no science degrees either. He had a degree to practice being a lawyer. But Lyell was a Bible scoffer. His book on the geological column had his opinions about the Bible written all through it. It was a total attack on YEC. This is why Darwin turned against his literal teaching of God's word.

4) Darwin rejected his literal teaching of God word, which includes YEC. And to get back at the God who made him look stupid for believing the Bible literally. He came up with an idea based on two things.

a) To attack the idea of YEC so that he would not be made to look stupid as Lyell's book pointed out.

:) To use a Pagan religion idea (man came from animals), that is against God's creation as his revenge for this mockery to his pride and intellect that Lyell pointed out.

Example:

What God's word says......................  What evolution theory says.
1) Earth before sun.........................  1) Sun before earth.  
2) Oceans before land.....................  2) Land before oceans.  
3) Light before sun..........................  3) Sun before light.  
4) Land plants first..........................  4) Marine life first. 
5) Fruit tree before fish....................  5) Fish before fruit tree.  
6) Fish before insects.......................  6) Insects before fish.  
7) Plants before sun.........................  7) Sun before plants. 
8) Man was created from solid matter.  8) Man evolved from liquid. 
9) Bird before reptiles.......................  9) Reptiles before birds.
10) Animals reproduce after kind.......  10) Animals reproduce however they like.

You just don't come up with an idea that is the exact opposite of another idea unless that was your goal. The odds would not work.

But Darwin did not realize that modern science would prove him wrong, and reveal his theory is not scientific at all. I was going to start another thread on this, but I guess putting it here will do for now. And if a new thread needs to be started, it can be.

DNA vs. Evolution:

Every 1% difference in DNA = 30 million differences between the two life forms. Current DNA difference claims is some where between 95% and 98%. Which in numbers would be:

60 million (60,000,000) base pair differences - 150 million (150,000,000) base pair differences.

Now why was narrowing up that number so important to get really close to 100%? When the claim about DNA was first made. Evolutionists did not realize that DNA was so vast. The human genome has over 3 billion base pairs. That was not known when the claim was first made. So saying 87% was okay. But once the genome got mapped, there arose a problem that evolutionists are afraid some one will figure out.

Our closest claimed ancestor "Lucy" is claimed to be 3.2 million years old. She would fall into the 2% range, which most evolutionist would agree upon. But let's do some math.

2% DNA difference = 60 Million differences.
Lucy is claimed to be 3.2 million years old.
That works out to 18.75 million base pair changes per year.
And that works out to 51,369 base pair changes per day.

Now if 2% is to much, cut all those numbers in half for 1% difference and you will see that it still don't work.

Why is this important? Our immune system will attack anything that it deems as foreign to the human body. Animals have the same type reaction in their immune system. So changes this big and this fast would make our immune system attack those changes and we would become very sick, and probably die. As well as any animal would.

This is why 99.9999% of all evolutionists sites hide the actual genome number that the 1-5% difference represents. It reveals that evolution, in the claimed time-line, does not work. Even with millions of years.

Also, this would mean that the fusion of chromosome #2 causes 60 million things to change in our DNA (base pair changes). A deadly change at that. And if evolutionists try an claim our immune system was suppressed while this was going on. Then I can list several other problems as our bodies would be attacked by everything imaginable, and if we could not fight it with our immune system. We would die. So that does not work either.

So basically, evolution gets debunked by their own findings and claims that were wrong.

View Post



WOW- You put a lot of effort into that post and I appreciate it. It seems that if you you debate evolution you have to get your armor on. It gets personal and vicious quickly. It seems that many in this room has battle wounds proving that point.

#56 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 22 May 2009 - 09:39 AM

WOW- You put a lot of effort into that post and I appreciate it.  It seams that if you you debate evolution you have to get your armor on.  It gets personal and vicious quickly.  It seams that many in this room has battle wounds proving that point.

View Post


There’s a difference between having battle wounds, and having the armor (facts) that keep you from getting wounded. It kind of concerns me that you relate the mass of informational facts that Ikester posted with his being “personal and vicious”.

Of course he would put a lot of effort into correcting a misunderstanding. If you saw someone heading for a chasm at a high rate of speed, wouldn’t you hasten toward them with all the information to save them?

#57 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 May 2009 - 09:46 AM

WOW- You put a lot of effort into that post and I appreciate it.  It seams that if you you debate evolution you have to get your armor on.  It gets personal and vicious quickly.  It seams that many in this room has battle wounds proving that point.

View Post

I have to agree with De_skudd on this one, Bruce. I do appreciate your effort of being civil. However, sometimes some potential and necessary offense is needed, especially if it is simply based on telling the truth.

If you look at the New Testament, you'll see that the disciples had no problem hashing it out with people, even fellow believers. The concern of offense was of a pretty low rank. I don't think early disciples had themselves killed for trying to keep the peace. I'll enjoy the peace when I'm in the arms of my Heavenly Father. Until then there are souls and truth to fight for.

You should watch this if you get a chance:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2315

Yours in Christ,
Adam

#58 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 22 May 2009 - 10:46 AM

More modern is what I should have said. Back in the day of Kelvin being against evolution was allowed because it was not considered a true fact back then.

View Post


And, other than the worshipful followers, its not considered a true fact today! :)

#59 numbers

numbers

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Houston

Posted 22 May 2009 - 02:27 PM

Our closest claimed ancestor "Lucy" is claimed to be 3.2 million years old. She would fall into the 2% range, which most evolutionist would agree upon. But let's do some math.

2% DNA difference = 60 Million differences.
Lucy is claimed to be 3.2 million years old.
That works out to 18.75 million base pair changes per year.
And that works out to 51,369 base pair changes per day.

Now if 2% is to much, cut all those numbers in half for 1% difference and you will see that it still don't work.

Your math is wrong.

60,000,000/3,200,000=18.75 not 18,750,000

You divided by 3.2 instead of 3.2 million. You are off by a factor of million.

#60 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 May 2009 - 02:43 PM

Your math is wrong. 

60,000,000/3,200,000=18.75 not 18,750,000

You divided by 3.2 instead of 3.2 million.  You are off by a factor of million.

View Post


Pfffffffffft, that means nothing in evolutionary math! :mellow: What’s a few million amongst debaters? ;)

I see your million, and raise you three million (as Ron raises his right pinkie finger tip to the corner of his mouth)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users