nothing from nothing - Page 4

I agree, now remind me what the race was about??

Not that kind of race, silly. Winning as a metaphor. Cuts the boredom to nothing!

 

Beetree, thanks for the tip...lol...:) he usually freaks out when I poke him.......:)

Actually shtal vk would more accurately describe his response to yr idiocy as pity for yr self delusion, ignorance, lack of original thought and lack of any form of credible knowledge as pathetic and sad.

Actually shtal vk would more accurately describe,


How about I will rephrase it for you!
Vk4 would more accurately describe how a frog turned into Prince over millions of years because if the universe is young as Bible suggests than it would make your theory look fairytale but if it took millions of years for frog to turn into Prince then that is modern science lol.......:) no that is still fairytale lol

actually vk say that show us yr evidence, and while yr at it show the scientific paper saying the gransire of a human child was a rock or that frogs turn into princes. the evidence for evolution is on the public record and in fact no experiment has ever been done to refute it after 150 years of trying.

you gonna answer any of the previous questions i asked you or you just going to make up new stuff, i see bee has been a good mentor for you.

the evidence for evolution is on the public record and in fact no experiment has ever been done to refute it after 150 years of trying.


ROFL, you think I will fall for that? This scenario reminds me of an Oort cloud.

 

VK4, you should take a break with all of this, I think you are possessed by something or by someone...

hovind is so honest he is prison, credible source right there, he even tries to link his conviction to the persecution of the early martyrs and jesus himself, what a conman, what a fraud and what a compulsive lier. how anyone would try and use hovind as an authority on anything except being a professional criminal is beyond me.

Carlin sorry for taking me a bit longer to get back to your last reply to me but I would have to disagree with you; and here is why? Think about it! Is there a double standard regarding intelligent design, Carlin, and I personally think so…you know if an archeologist dug-up clay tablets in the Middle East with an Gilgamesh epic, written down in beautiful Connie form and he brought this in and said oh my goodness - look at this ancient epic story of a great flood, wow, boy - society that was really you know gifted in literature and writing and produce this, there would be no objections in common sense about that; everybody would accept, yes – certain types of design something like that, don’t happened by wind and rain, erosion on clay, does not produce Gilgamesh epic in Connie form, doesn’t happened, at least in our scientific experience…but that same argument creationist used like Ham and Hovind. The type of design and particularly linguistic complexity we find in all living organisms at the molecular level information is the key, the information storage and retrieval and actualization, utilization – it’s all about information systems that interface with one another and cooperate with one another and yet information is based on everything we know in real science, something that only arises, as far as scientific observation is concern by the intelligent authorship. Never by time, chance, natural laws of chemistry and physics all the experiments have failed for more then half of century since the last lab experience Stanley Miller in 1953, yet inspire decays object failure the evolutionist still are there because in there book they can’t loose, after all the rule book says they win even the all evidence against them, you would have to understand that mind set Carlin, you would get very frustrated in trying to converse with them. But say we have you know Carlin this idea, you can’t ever invoke you know intelligent design is by definition religion and is the by definition NOT science, everything must be explain in terms of naturalism, so I tell you to go out and look at this phenomena and before you go remember the rule book says you can’t invoke intelligent design and control procedures to explain this, okay! Then you go look at Mount Rushmore, and you look at that and say wow four presidents heads carved in granite, how did that get there? Based on everything we know and life experience and observation science, they have to take that information which we knew from eye witnesses who drew portraits of Jefferson and Washington and actual photographs of Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln and used that information to impose precise facts similar or replica in granite at Mount Rushmore. That’s the ONLY way we know, based on any science (the) that happens, doesn’t happened by wind, raining erosion, squirrels browning into rocks – at least not by our observation but you know you want to get an A on the test so you go well doesn’t seem to make any sense but I want to get my A so you going to say isn’t amazing what wind and rain, erosion for millions of years squirrels browning into rocks did, four presidents heads in granite. That’s the sad (Carlin) irony of what’s going on; it’s like one scientist called elephant in the living room; the name of the elephant is the intelligent design and he said you know to make a living in field biochemistry you have to live with the elephant in the living room but you can acknowledge is there, it takes up space, it stinks, it defecates, it trumpets, it throws hay-owe over the place, and all the wild we have to swear it’s not there because if we acknowledge it we loose our job, the elephant in the living room is all over this universe, the fingerprint of the creator are there but many in scientific community intimidated and never admitted; they will go with standard definition of naturalism they want to keep there job.
 
And here is my conclusion Carlin! So we have a two edge sword of science when it comes to creation – evolution issue?  And this I quote from Francisco J Ayala biological evolutionist.
 
And he said a hypothesis is empirical or scientific only if it can be tested by experience. A hypothesis or theory which cannot be, at least in principle, falsified by empirical observations and experiments does not belong to the realm of science.
 
And with him says therefore creation does not qualify as a scientific theory because we can’t tested, we can’t observed it, can’t call out creator and ask him to do miracle of creation for us. And we can’t go into past and observed whether or NOT he did create the universe, life and man. And that is legitimate criticism, (you and I Carlin and Christians) ultimately believe the doctrine of creation by faith, but that does not mean that there is any evidence, I think there is reasonable faith, based on the way of evidence, that’s how we make decisions in court of law. The jury didn’t see crime happened but look at the way of the evidence and they judge beyond reasonable doubt this is true, even though they didn’t see it with there own eyes, evidence is sufficient that is a reasonable faith beyond reasonable doubt. And that is our faith in creation, it is reasonable faith, it fits the facts with least problems and contradictions and it does not contradict by any known real facts of science, I am not saying theories and philosophies, lots of theories and philosophies in the world contradict the Bible but they are just theories and philosophies, sometimes masquerading scientific fact. Real empirical demonstrated facts we don’t disagree at all…we have all the same evidence, all the same facts as a evolutionists, the only thing we disagree about is the interpretation, the history, how long it took? Basically one of the big differentness we disagree on we look at the same physical evidence in every field of science, we just disagree on history of how it came to be.
 
Now my final point with all of this writing Carlin, this double edge sword cuts the other way because - although we can’t prove creation by scientific method, neither can we prove evolutionary theory, can we go back in time-machine and observe the Big Band, an evolutionary origin the universe? Where origin first living cell? Or cell evolving into amphibian, fish, reptile, mammals, apes and finally man? Over billions of years of time, NO; we can’t observed it and by his own definition of Francisco J Ayala, if you can’t falsified by observation, we can’t do that to evolution on broad scale because we can’t repeat history in the laboratory, then it does not belong to the realm of science by there own definition. It’s not a question Carlin which one is faith and which one is scientific fact? Is the question which FAITH fits the facts? The best! With least number of problems - contradictions, that’s the best we can do Carlin with any historical question – science is limited in what it can tell us. Thank you for reading, Shtal.