It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>Are you kidding me? Busted? I answered every question correctly. You asked what all these differing wallabies have in common. I replied, "They are all wallabies and they all came from other wallabies" (paraphrased)Is that not 100% correct? You even had to change your original question because I was right!!!
Listen, the point is, and you are failing at supporting, is that wallabies only come from other wallabies. And there is no observable, testable, or replicatable scientific evidence that a wallaby ever evolved from a "not wallaby"...which is, by the way, what you are trying to prove happened. All you did was prove what I have always said, that micro evolution has evidence and "wallaby from non-wallaby evolution does not.
Busted indeed!!!!

You "answers" to my questions remind me of the old joke about a helicopter pilot lost in fog who finds a large building in the murk, sees someone inside an open window and calls out "where am I?" and receives the answer "you're in a helicopter" whereupon the pilot makes a 90 degree turn and heads straight fo the (invisible) airport and makes a safe landing. He did this because the answer was 100% correct but completely useless, so the pilot knew that the person must work for Microsoft Support and he knew where their building was in relation to the airport.

You, my friend did exactly the same thing to my questions. The reason I had to change the question was because you tried to avoid answering the original one. You were, however, too tricky by half and in the end you revealed yourself as being someone who uses words without knowing what they mean. Unless you're prepared to reveal what you think a wallaby is, without resorting to the tautological statement "a wallaby is a wallaby" which is all you have given us so far, then you have indeed been busted. Big time..

You still have not

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
Especially since the claim comes from a demonstrated reliable historical record, and there's no physical proof that it didn't happen.

Well, actually there is. All the traces that would exist if there had been a GLOBAL flud are not there. And plenty of people who knew what they were looking at have gone out specificlly looking for these traces. No such traces have been found and indeed positive evidence has been found of no flud in the form of stable water levels in lakes, river deltas etc - right through the period when the flud was supposed to have happened.

That amounts to no flud having been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
I wasn't referring to Gilgamesh.

Yes you were.

Thomas Robertson wrote:

<quoted text>
I dare any Creationist to look at the DNA of any organism living today and tell us exactly what that organism can and cannot be bred into.

It can be bred into what ever it is, and can not be bred into anything differnt that what it is. If it was otherwise, they could force living things into becoming living things other than what they are. Ain't happening. Show me otherwise. Don't ask me what it can be bred into. Show me something that it has been bred into. You can't.

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm talking about the grey area between good and evil. If God won't clarify things He needs to be pushed.
It's a moot point now since, for reasons explained elsewhere, my theology has evolved.
Nevertheless, the challenge still stands. Where is the division between good from evil. I think I know. Do you?

Tell me this. In every instance, is it evil to steal? What did evolution put inside you that even tells you there is evil and good? What set that standard for you?

Bluenose wrote:

<quoted text>
You "answers" to my questions remind me of the old joke about a helicopter pilot lost in fog who finds a large building in the murk, sees someone inside an open window and calls out "where am I?" and receives the answer "you're in a helicopter" whereupon the pilot makes a 90 degree turn and heads straight fo the (invisible) airport and makes a safe landing. He did this because the answer was 100% correct but completely useless, so the pilot knew that the person must work for Microsoft Support and he knew where their building was in relation to the airport.
You, my friend did exactly the same thing to my questions. The reason I had to change the question was because you tried to avoid answering the original one. You were, however, too tricky by half and in the end you revealed yourself as being someone who uses words without knowing what they mean. Unless you're prepared to reveal what you think a wallaby is, without resorting to the tautological statement "a wallaby is a wallaby" which is all you have given us so far, then you have indeed been busted. Big time..
You still have not

I'm not running your wallaby tangents. I answered your questions. You tried to infer that due to the fact that there are so many differing wallabies, that that is support for the myth that they evolved from something other than a wallaby. I asked you to show me where I could observe, test, and replicate wallaby from non-wallaby evolution. You couldn't do that and we both know why. All you could do is show wallaby from wallaby evolution which is meaningless in this debate.

Case closed!

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
Ooooooh...that's a good burn.

Oh,you mean your arse is burning?

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
Why are you unwilling to answer simple questions? It's a question of fact. You either did it or you didn't. I would just like, for once, to see you admit an error. You know, like good honest Christians are always willing to do?
Did you, or solid you not, declare the Bible the oldest book in the world?

Fact is not the same thing as truth,even though they are similar in some extent...

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
Why are you unwilling to answer simple questions? It's a question of fact. You either did it or you didn't. I would just like, for once, to see you admit an error. You know, like good honest Christians are always willing to do?
Did you, or solid you not, declare the Bible the oldest book in the world?

Again,
the fact that the bible is not the oldest book in the world,does not change the truth that the bible is more than the oldest book in the world,get that...

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>I'm not running your wallaby tangents. I answered your questions. You tried to infer that due to the fact that there are so many differing wallabies, that that is support for the myth that they evolved from something other than a wallaby. I asked you to show me where I could observe, test, and replicate wallaby from non-wallaby evolution. You couldn't do that and we both know why. All you could do is show wallaby from wallaby evolution which is meaningless in this debate.
Case closed!

Bzzzzzttt!!! Wrong, sit down.

You are completely wrong here. I was not trying to say anything about the evolution of wallabies. What I was trying to get at - and have even already explained here - is that you are using the term wallaby without even knowing what it means. You started out making some inane comment about the wallabies that have become natualised on one of the Hawaiian islands that made me suspect you lack understabding of what a wallaby is. So I decided to see if you knew what you were talking about or were simply full of it. Your inability to explain what you meant by the word showed which category you fall into.

The fact is "wallabies" are not a well defined group. The term is a catch-all for macroods that are too small to be considered kangaroos and which have not been given some other name. They are comprised of some 30 species or so across a number of genera, not all of them particulalry closely related. In other words, "wallaby" is a nearly useless category. Yet you used the word like it means something.

It is things like this that show the pointlessness of trying to have an inteligent conversation with you. You simply do not even have the vocabulary - let alone the understanding - to be able to make intelligent comment on the subject at hand.

Thanks for playing and proving my point so eloquently.

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
The word 'morality' does not appear in the King James Bible.

Are you denying the fact and the truth that,in English language there are several words with the same meaning???

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
The word 'morality' does not appear in the King James Bible.

Wrong!!!
Learn the language called,English...
Synonymns,Homonymns,Antonymns, pseudonymns and others...

TedHOhio wrote:

<quoted text>
Hand raised!

I call that surrender!
An advice:
Any time you want to make a surrender,come with your white flag...

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
Humans knowledge are limited to a particular extent
look in the mirror.

Truth is bitter!!!
Look in the mirror...

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
How long do you figure it will be before you get barred again?

The truth will always prevail,no matter what...

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
That's not what the BIble says.

Then you do not understand the difference between the mortals and the immortals...

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>Tell me this. In every instance, is it evil to steal? What did evolution put inside you that even tells you there is evil and good? What set that standard for you?

Good morning.

Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family is the classic example. Stealing a truckload of sirloin steaks to feed your family, and the truck, is a bit different. How many sirloin steaks can you steal before being condemned to hell?

Self preservation. The sisters of the Holy Humility of Mary put the knowledge of good and evil into me with a big aluminum ruler. The Jesuits threatened to throw me to the public school. Dad sparingly used a leather belt.

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>Tell me this. In every instance, is it evil to steal? What did evolution put inside you that even tells you there is evil and good? What set that standard for you?

Anyway, it's a stupid question, kind of like asking what separates human from non-human. I figure what occupies the gulf between good and evil is morality. What I want to know is what gives Christianity the right to forbid me from occasionally screwing a very pleasant and willing young lady whose body is best described as flawless. You wouldd call that evil, wouldn't you, because some geriatric male wrote it in an old book.

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text>Then you do not understand the difference between the mortals and the immortals...

I won't waste time looking back. If I said it's not what the Bible says, it's not what the Bible says. You can demonstrate you're not a useless piece of slime by showing otherwise.

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text>Again,
the fact that the bible is not the oldest book in the world,does not change the truth that the bible is more than the oldest book in the world,get that...

But, just to be clear, you DID declare the Bible the oldest book in the world, right? Yes or no. There are no other valid responses. Truth and fact are the same in this instance. Be an honest Christian and answer the question.