A Challenge To All Creationists

[omega2xx]

Don't hold your breath waiting for it....
they are currently to busy patting each other on the back over their displayed ignorance to get to the actual thread topic.

If I held my breath waiting for one of you evos to provide the evidence for mutations being the mechanism for a change of species, you wouldn't have to put up with omega any more.

 

[McBell]

If I held my breath waiting for one of you evos to provide the evidence for mutations being the mechanism for a change of species, you wouldn't have to put up with omega any more.

Bold faced lie.
It has been presented.
You flat out refuse to look at it.

 

[omega2xx]

Are you really this dim? You tried to claim that Gould said there are no transitional fossils. Gould spoke to this and clearly stated that he was tired of creationists misrepresenting him as saying that there are no transitional fossils. He then pondered whether creationists do this out of dishonest or stupidity.

Evidently you need a refresher course in elementary reading comprehension. I never said Gould said there were no transitional fossils.

He was talking about you.

Whoever he was talking to, there are no intermediate fossils because "the fossil record is woefully inadequate.

 

[omega2xx]

Bold faced lie.

Not that anyone is the least bit surprised.

Bold face lie.

To bad you are ignorant of the subject. If you don't think "after their kind" has been proven, you are much worse off about science than I imagined.

 

[omega2xx]

You made the claim.
You are the one who needs to support said claim.

The fact that you will not leaves no alternative but to dismiss your bold empty claim as bull ****.

Prediction,.... MORE lies from omega2xx

Ignorance is as ignorance does. When one doesn't have the intellect to make their point they always resort to profanity as if that proves how smart they are. Actually it does.

 

[omega2xx]

Bold faced lie.
It has been presented.
You flat out refuse to look at it.

BOLD FACE LIE.

 

[Jose Fly]

Evidently you need a refresher course in elementary reading comprehension. I never said Gould said there were no transitional fossils.

Now you're just not telling the truth. This is what you said: "There are no transitional fossils. 2 of your exerts, Gould and Mayr, say basically the same thing".

So perhaps it was dishonesty after all.

 

[McBell]

Bold face lie.

To bad you are ignorant of the subject. If you don't think "after their kind" has been proven, you are much worse off about science than I imagined.

It is rather impressive how you reveal just how dishonest you are by compounding your bold faced lie with quote mining.
Or are you going to claim to be so ignorant you did not understand, even with it right there in black and white, what lie of yours I was referring to?

Either way, it makes you look even worse.
Which is something I honestly thought you could not do.

Congrats!!

 

[McBell]

Ignorance is as ignorance does. When one doesn't have the intellect to make their point they always resort to profanity as if that proves how smart they are. Actually it does.

still waiting for your claims to be supported with something other diversion tactics.

Not hold my breath though.

 

[McBell]

BOLD FACE LIE.

No it isn't.
All one has to do is look over this very thread.
You flat out admit you refuse to look at the evidence in a number of posts.

How can you refuse to look at it if it was never presented?
You have backed yourself into the liars corner.
No way to save face now.

 

[gnostic]

I have taught Isiah, so I have probably read it more than you have. Not only have I read it, I have studied it verse by verse.

Except that you have completely ignore the whole chapters and the complete signs (7:14-25 & 8:3-8), then your biblical "scholarship" is seriously deficient and too selective and biased.

Why do you ignore what it say afterward, from verses 15 to 17. The whole passage to the sign, should include 4 verses (14-17) and not just quarter of it as you and the gospel author have.

Irrelevant. "Sign" refers to a miraculous sign. A prophets wife or a young girl having a son, would not be anything that could point to God/

Again, you are ignoring the war in those 2 chapters.

What bible do you use?

If I remember correctly, it was NASB (New American Standard Bible). I had used the Tanakh NJPS (New Jewish Publication Society). I am not scoffing at your preference, so I am going to compare the two different translations.

NJPS

14 Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel. 15 (By the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good, people will be feeding on curds and honey.) 16 For before the lad knows to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground whose two kings you dread shall be abandoned. 17 The L ORD will cause to come upon you and your people and your ancestral house such days as never have come since Ephraim turned away from Judah—that selfsame king of Assyria!

14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. 15 He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. 16 For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken. 17 The Lord will bring on you, on your people, and on your father’s house such days as have never come since the day that Ephraim separated from Judah, the king of Assyria.”

Do you see the the "he" and "boy" in verses 15 and 16 respectively? Do you think that's anyone else other than Immanuel?

Even your preferred translation, show that the "boy" in verses 15 & 16 is Immanuel. The sign to the birth of Immanuel is not independent to the rest of the sign. Only biased and ignorant creationist, will not see that they are blind.

The boy, Immanuel, has to reach a certain age, before the King of Assyria get involved in the tussle between Judah and the alliance of the "two kings".

That much is pretty clear to me, that there are more to the sign of birth of son.

You have focused too much on what Matthew's say about the sign, and not what Isaiah have to say. That's not good scholarship, that's just your biased ignorance. A good scholar wouldn't focus on one verse, he would read the whole chapter to make sense.

And let's look again at verses 8:5-8, again. I have already posted this passage in my previous reply, but this time, I will use your translation - the NASB:

5 Again the Lord spoke to me further, saying,

6 “Inasmuch as these people have rejected the gently flowing waters of Shiloah
And rejoice in Rezin and the son of Remaliah;
7 “Now therefore, behold, the Lord is about to bring on them the strong and abundant waters of the Euphrates,
Even the king of Assyria and all his glory;
And it will rise up over all its channels and go over all its banks.
8 “Then it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass through,
It will reach even to the neck;
And the spread of its wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.

Do you not see, omega2xx?

This passage (8:5-8), like the one before it - 7:14-17 - connect "Immanuel" to the war in Judah, to the "two kings" and to the "King of Assyria".

Only a blind and stubbornly biased person will not see Immanuel and the war in Judah are all related. Immanuel has nothing to do with Mary and Jesus.

I was "you" 17 years ago. I took what the church taught me, about the virgin birth, without ever questioning the validity of the church or Christian interpretation to the sign. I realised my mistake, when I read the bible again in 2000.

You still have your head buried in the sand. You see little, and you know even less.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Pray tell, do you do the same sort of "add to the text" tactic when you read the Bible?
Would explain quite a lot....

No. My understanding of the Scriptures makes sense. Shared ancestry is nonsense.

Curious, though....What would it explain?

 

[james bond]

Let's see this evidence from creation scientists.

It's similar to secular scientists' evidence which you should be familiar with.

How do you know? Do you say that only after you've read through numerous scientific journals? After attending conferences and symposiums?

You try getting a tiger to have sex with a goat .

Even if you do it in a lab, the offspring does not survive past one generation. The Russians did human-ape sex experiments -- http://io9.gizmodo.com/379276/soviet-monkey-human-sex-experiments-live-on .

And you disagree? Please explain how if mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection play out in multiple populations for 3.8 billion years, no macroevolution will occur.

You give me an experiment on how it works . Just check the above link for the common ancestor BS.

I don't see any explanation for dinosaur-avian evolution on that page.

Knock yourself out.
LMGTFY

 

[omega2xx]

Now you're just not telling the truth. This is what you said: "There are no transitional fossils. 2 of your exerts, Gould and Mayr, say basically the same thing".

So perhaps it was dishonesty after all.

Evidently you have forgotten what a period means. Although I can see how one might read it as Gould and Mayr say there are no transitional fossils. Although I did quote what they said, which is basically the same.

 

[omega2xx]

It is rather impressive how you reveal just how dishonest you are by compounding your bold faced lie with quote mining.
Or are you going to claim to be so ignorant you did not understand, even with it right there in black and white, what lie of yours I was referring to?

Either way, it makes you look even worse.
Which is something I honestly thought you could not do.

Congrats!!

Only in the eyes of those who are scientifically ignorant. There is nothing wrong with quoting experts. I have no idea what lie your are referring to, and could not care less. I am only interested in the evidence you say there is for mutations being a mechanism for a change of species, which no one has presented yet.

If you don't present the evidence it means one of 3 things: There is none or it is a bold face lie or you are ignorant of science.

 

[omega2xx]

still waiting for your claims to be supported with something other diversion tactics.

Not hold my breath though.

STILL waiting for your evidence that mutations are a mechanism for a change of species. Not holding my breath though.

 

[omega2xx]

No it isn't.
All one has to do is look over this very thread.
You flat out admit you refuse to look at the evidence in a number of posts.

How can you refuse to look at it if it was never presented?
You have backed yourself into the liars corner.
No way to save face now.

Evidently you have ignored my reason. Now here is your chance to be the hero of this debate. I have said I no longer read links because they NEVER provide any scientific evidence/ I have invited all of you evos to cut and past the evidence your link provided. To date no one has accepted my offer.

So instead of avoiding the obvious, shut me up and cut and paste the evidence. IMO some of you have gone back to your link and discovered it did not have any scientific evidence. So until you do that, you are just blowing smoke to try and cloud the real issue.

 

[omega2xx]

Except that you have completely ignore the whole chapters and the complete signs (7:14-25 & 8:3-8), then your biblical "scholarship" is seriously deficient and too selective and biased.

Why do you ignore what it say afterward, from verses 15 to 17. The whole passage to the sign, should include 4 verses (14-17) and not just quarter of it as you and the gospel author have.


Again, you are ignoring the war in those 2 chapters.

What bible do you use?

If I remember correctly, it was NASB (New American Standard Bible). I had used the Tanakh NJPS (New Jewish Publication Society). I am not scoffing at your preference, so I am going to compare the two different translations.

NJPS




Do you see the the "he" and "boy" in verses 15 and 16 respectively? Do you think that's anyone else other than Immanuel?

Even your preferred translation, show that the "boy" in verses 15 & 16 is Immanuel. The sign to the birth of Immanuel is not independent to the rest of the sign. Only biased and ignorant creationist, will not see that they are blind.

The boy, Immanuel, has to reach a certain age, before the King of Assyria get involved in the tussle between Judah and the alliance of the "two kings".

That much is pretty clear to me, that there are more to the sign of birth of son.

You have focused too much on what Matthew's say about the sign, and not what Isaiah have to say. That's not good scholarship, that's just your biased ignorance. A good scholar wouldn't focus on one verse, he would read the whole chapter to make sense.

And let's look again at verses 8:5-8, again. I have already posted this passage in my previous reply, but this time, I will use your translation - the NASB:

5 Again the Lord spoke to me further, saying,



Do you not see, omega2xx?

This passage (8:5-8), like the one before it - 7:14-17 - connect "Immanuel" to the war in Judah, to the "two kings" and to the "King of Assyria".

Only a blind and stubbornly biased person will not see Immanuel and the war in Judah are all related. Immanuel has nothing to do with Mary and Jesus.

I was "you" 17 years ago. I took what the church taught me, about the virgin birth, without ever questioning the validity of the church or Christian interpretation to the sign. I realised my mistake, when I read the bible again in 2000.

You still have your head buried in the sand. You see little, and you know even less.

I have given you my interpretation twice. You have made up your mind and nothing I say will change it, so there is no use continuing this discussion. Your problem is you do not accept the possibility of a virgin birth. If that is the case, your God is to small.

 

[gnostic]

I have given you my interpretation twice. You have made up your mind and nothing I say will change it, so there is no use continuing this discussion. Your problem is you do not accept the possibility of a virgin birth. If that is the case, your God is to small.

No, omega2xx. You are putting words in my mouth. But now, I understand what you are disagreeing with me.

So let's make it abundantly clear:

I DID NOT SAY THE VIRGIN BIRTH DIDN'T HAPPEN!​

And I didn't say "I don't believe in the virgin birth".

What I have been saying all along is that the gospel author, presumably "Matthew" have deliberately misinterpreted the context of Isaiah's passage - the sign.

And that Christians such as yourself continue to misinterpret and misuse Isaiah 7:14.

You are wrong about Isaiah's sign, because it doesn't say what you believe it to be - "virgin birth" and the "messiah". The sign has nothing to with Mary and Jesus, because you are ignoring the WHOLE SIGN.

And the "whole sign" is 7:14-17 and 8:3-4.

Have you noticed that I not once, I question the virgin birth and birth of Jesus?

I am not criticising Mary or Jesus.

The only thing I am criticising Matthew 1:23 and Christian interpretations of Isaiah's passage.

My criticism is also your misrepresentation of Isaiah's sign.

And I didn't say I don't believe in Jesus. Jesus didn't write about his birth, and he didn't tell the author to quote Isaiah's sign.

But, you, don't give me positive image of Christianity, because of your stubborn ignorance on your puny biblical scholarship.

But it is not your ignorance that make me sick to the stomach. No, it is not your ignorance; my real problem is your lack of integrity and honesty, which give Christianity bad reputations. You have displayed your dishonesty so frequently in this thread alone, that everyone can see it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"the already well established and well supported theory of microevolution."

There, fixed.

It was accurate the first time.