The Scientific Case Against Evolution

michel · Aug 24, 2005

Fade said:
I don't get it??? Evolution is authentic and so therefore the money is authentic.

Tell it to the Judge - (Isaiah 33:22)

JerryL · Aug 24, 2005

If by this you meant "you're wrong", please be man enough to say so. Otherwise, I'll thank you not to preface what I say with "you think". Fair enough?

I ment what I said. If you would like a more elaborate response try "it's what you believe God does, but other people thing God does differently and others still think there is no God to do at all".

Obviously, since I'm an evolutionist, I think you are wrong. You think you are right. There's no surprise there. I put "you think" in because you were claiming facts not in evidence. It's fine to assert factually things which are agreed upon, or which can be proven within a shared framework; but yours cannot (and an attept to prove it would be off-topic).

michel · Aug 24, 2005

AV1611 said:
More appropriately, we reject Evolution because God rejects Evolution.

I might be being dense, but where does it say that God rejects evolution?

Fade · Aug 24, 2005

AV1611 said:
Tell it to the Judge - (Isaiah 33:22)

What? That a "supposedly" christian organisation pays its bills in fake money? I think I might get off with a warning

Fade · Aug 24, 2005

michel said:
I might be being dense, but where does it say that God rejects evolution?

I don't think it does anywhere, unless you are literally interpreting the Bible. In that case evolution appears to be a contradiction to what the bible says.

michel · Aug 24, 2005

JerryL said:
I ment what I said. If you would like a more elaborate response try "it's what you believe God does, but other people thing God does differently and others still think there is no God to do at all".

Obviously, since I'm an evolutionist, I think you are wrong. You think you are right. There's no surprise there. I put "you think" in because you were claiming facts not in evidence. It's fine to assert factually things which are agreed upon, or which can be proven within a shared framework; but yours cannot (and an attept to prove it would be off-topic).

That's real cute, Jerry. Talk about circular logic.

AV: God is against Evolution.
Jerry: Obviously, since I'm an evolutionist, I think you are wrong.

So you're saying then, Jerry, that God is for Evolution?

michel · Aug 24, 2005

michel said:
I might be being dense, but where does it say that God rejects evolution?

You're not dense, Michel. You may have a little reading comprehension problem, but definately not dense.

IN THE BEGINNING, GOD CREATED...

michel · Aug 24, 2005

Fade said:
What? That a "supposedly" christian organisation pays its bills in fake money? I think I might get off with a warning

So who would you want to be right, you or CRI?

michel · Aug 24, 2005

AV1611 said:
You're not dense, Michel. You may have a little reading comprehension problem, but definately not dense.

IN THE BEGINNING, GOD CREATED...

You didn't answer the question; where does it say that God rejects evolution? - I agree that God 'created', at the begining, but where does it say he reject evolution?

Fade · Aug 24, 2005

AV1611 said:
That's real cute, Jerry. Talk about circular logic.

AV: God is against Evolution.
Jerry: Obviously, since I'm an evolutionist, I think you are wrong.

So you're saying then, Jerry, that God is for Evolution?

JerryL is immune to the mind altering powers of circular logic man.
Plus I seriously doubt that he would presume to put words in gods mouth. Something that you appear to enjoy doing on a regular basis. Case in point, "God is against Evolution" & "The Earth is 6000 years old".

michel · Aug 24, 2005

michel said:
You didn't answer the question; where does it say that God rejects evolution? - I agree that God 'created', at the begining, but where does it say he reject evolution?

Genesis 1:27

michel · Aug 24, 2005

Fade said:
JerryL is immune to the mind altering powers of circular logic man.
Plus I seriously doubt that he would presume to put words in gods mouth. Something that you appear to enjoy doing on a regular basis. Case in point, "God is against Evolution" & "The Earth is 6000 years old".

No, the Earth is NOT 6000 years old, assuming you were quoting me. It's much older. I not going to rehash this again.

Fade · Aug 24, 2005

AV1611 said:
No, the Earth is NOT 6000 years old, assuming you were quoting me. It's much older. I not going to rehash this again.

Oh yes, sorry I forgot. That eternal prankster, God, created the earth 6000 years ago but created it so that it looks much older.

michel · Aug 24, 2005

AV1611 said:
Genesis 1:27

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Where does it say ' God rejects evolution? ' . Ouch! I realized I was starting to sound a bit short (Sorry about that); what I mean is, what Is wrong with accepting Creation, and evolution ?

JerryL · Aug 24, 2005

That's real cute, Jerry. Talk about circular logic.

OK. Let's talk about circular logic. Circular logic is a proof which is fallaction because your conclusion is included in your premise.

Perhaps I'm missing your point. I don't see that I've made a circular claim.

AV: God is against Evolution.
Jerry: Obviously, since I'm an evolutionist, I think you are wrong.

So you're saying then, Jerry, that God is for Evolution?

More importantly, and what you responded to, I'm stating the position as an opinion rather than a fact. I'm happy to state as facts things that I can prove withing the conversation, or that are agreed upon as fact. Your claim that God "is against" evolution is contentious, and I don't believe true.

michel · Aug 24, 2005

michel said:
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Where does it say ' God rejects evolution? ' . Ouch! I realized I was starting to sound a bit short (Sorry about that); what I mean is, what Is wrong with accepting Creation, and evolution ?

The two are mutually exclusive.

michel · Aug 24, 2005

AV1611 said:
The two are mutually exclusive.

Says who ? - You?

michel · Aug 24, 2005

JerryL said:
OK. Let's talk about circular logic. Circular logic is a proof which is fallaction because your conclusion is included in your premise.

Perhaps I'm missing your point. I don't see that I've made a circular claim.

More importantly, and what you responded to, I'm stating the position as an opinion rather than a fact. I'm happy to state as facts things that I can prove withing the conversation, or that are agreed upon as fact. Your claim that God "is against" evolution is contentious, and I don't believe true.

Well perhaps here's the difference then:

You have documentation to assert an opinion; I have Documentation to prove my point.

Fade · Aug 24, 2005

The more he posts the more positive I am that AV is in fact, a closet practitioner of my religion

michel · Aug 24, 2005

Fade said:
The more he posts the more positive I am that AV is in fact, a closet practitioner of my religion

Ah, but I don't suppose he has the benefit of all that guiness!:biglaugh:

The Scientific Case Against Evolution

Administrator Emeritus

Well-Known Member

Administrator Emeritus

The Great Master Bates

The Great Master Bates

Administrator Emeritus

Administrator Emeritus

Administrator Emeritus

Administrator Emeritus

The Great Master Bates

Administrator Emeritus

Administrator Emeritus

The Great Master Bates

Administrator Emeritus

Well-Known Member

Administrator Emeritus

Administrator Emeritus

Administrator Emeritus

The Great Master Bates

Administrator Emeritus