What's wrong with evolution?

Originally posted by Nosrac
God, unlike science, does not have a process.

He has a plan for Scott, and Kelly and Ammanion and King and all of you (my apologies for

misspellings).

God breathed Adam into existance...refute that...no, try and do that.

God made the entire expanding universe that you see.

God made every living creature on the planet.

Again, these were accom ...[text shortened]... w that God etched his Word upon your hearts.

Someday you will find out the TRUTH.

Nosrac

The only problem Nosrac is that for the atheistic evolutionist, the word 'truth' does not really have meaning.

For the Christian, God is the only unchanging absolute by which all other things are measured, since there was never a moment in time when God did not exist.

As the atheistic evolutionist has no absolute point of reference, it is impossible to have any type of logical discussion with them since 'absolute truth' would not really have any meaning in their vocabulary.

Originally posted by Nosrac
God, unlike science, does not have a process.

He has a plan for Scott, and Kelly and Ammanion and King and all of you (my apologies for

misspellings).

God breathed Adam into existance...refute that...no, try and do that.

God made the entire expanding universe that you see.

God made every living creature on the planet.

Again, these were accom ...[text shortened]... w that God etched his Word upon your hearts.

Someday you will find out the TRUTH.

Nosrac

And this is why everyone knows that you are a complete idiot. You just cited answersingenesis and Dr. Dino in the same post.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
And this is why everyone knows that you are a complete idiot. You just cited answersingenesis and Dr. Dino in the same post.

And I suppose you think everyone will respect you because you are so good at using insults as the only form of debate?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Oh I see so I don't even need to say something you just assume you
know what I believe.

I guess I don't need to respond you read minds or do whatever it is
you do to understand my position.

Is that your gift, God has his powers you have yours?
Kelly

You failed to answer. Which part is false? Stop evading the question (as usual) and just answer it.

Originally posted by jaywill
It had a beginning. So we can assume that it had a Beginner.
It and life have a design so they had a Designer, however long ago the original creation was.

This is a false argument. You assume too much. Why does the universe have to have a "beginner"? Why do you assume a designer, without any proof, or even the rudiments or evidence?

Originally posted by jaywill
Why did Evolutionists back away from Origin of Life arguments of science?

I have never backed away from this discussion.

Typical lying creationist.

Originally posted by dj2becker
As much as you would like to seperate Abiogenesis from the TOE, the latter would not be able to stand on its own as a viable theory of explaining origins if the former fell through the carpet.

And I have explained it to you many times. Would you like my copy and paste again? That'd be three times in less than a week. You should try reading it sometime.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Not more of this tripe, please. The argument has been hounded back into the cave from which it came; its proponents have either skulked off into the vapors or relied on the same by arguing what the definition of 'is' is.

Dodging the question Freaky? I would expect no less from you.

Originally posted by Nosrac
A Beginner?
Yes, God.

No, it was Muffy. Prove me wrong.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]The Theory of Evolution shows that all known life on earth today descended from single celled life in the past and probably from one single ancestor.

Depending on how you interpret the evidence that is before you. If you examine the evidence with a presupposition in your mind with regards to what you want the evidence to tell you then you should not be surprised if you see what you want to see in the evidence that is before you.[/b]

How would you know? Involved in the study of abiogenesis are you? If not, I suggest you remain silent - you apparently have no knowledge.

Originally posted by Nosrac
God, unlike science, does not have a process.

He has a plan for Scott, and Kelly and Ammanion and King and all of you (my apologies for

misspellings).

God breathed Adam into existance...refute that...no, try and do that.

God made the entire expanding universe that you see.

God made every living creature on the planet.

Again, these were accom ...[text shortened]... w that God etched his Word upon your hearts.

Someday you will find out the TRUTH.

Nosrac

I have a plan for you. It involves your break lines, a cliff and excessive speed.

Originally posted by dj2becker
The only problem Nosrac is that for the atheistic evolutionist, the word 'truth' does not really have meaning.

For the Christian, God is the only unchanging absolute by which all other things are measured, since there was never a moment in time when God did not exist.

As the atheistic evolutionist has no absolute point of reference, it is impossibl ...[text shortened]... sion with them since 'absolute truth' would not really have any meaning in their vocabulary.

Absolute crap. How many times do we need to refute your crap before you shut up?

Originally posted by dj2becker
And I suppose you think everyone will respect you because you are so good at using insults as the only form of debate?

Why not try asking him a sensible question, and you'll get a good debate.

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is a matter of faith Nemesio, on one hand while speaking about
evolution I don't bring in creation it has nothing to do with evolution
even if both are true, one is a process the other a special event. Yet,
you and others feel compelled to bring in my religious beliefs while all
I'm attempting to do is speak about the beliefs surrounding evolution.
...[text shortened]... ripture as there is me being able to prove God to another person,
that is up to God.
Kelly

I have two questions for you, KellyJay, and I believe that in answering
them clearly, you will clear up any confusion that anyone might have.

1) Do you believe that one 'faith' system is better than any other? By
better, I take this to mean that a person should be more compelled to
believe it rather than another 'faith' system.

2) If so, what are the criteria for determining that one 'faith' system is
better than another?

Djbecker and JayWill should feel free to answer these questions to.
The first question is a simple yes or no question, not requiring any
elaboration. The second question merely asks for a list of criteria and,
if necessary, definitions of the same.

Nemesio

Originally posted by scottishinnz
And I have explained it to you many times. Would you like my copy and paste again? That'd be three times in less than a week. You should try reading it sometime.

Unfortunately all three times you spoke about Abiogenesis you forgot to include the observable, reproducable scientific evidence which would make it a viable scientific theory.

All I got from you is a lot of speculation and wishful thinking.