Does everyone now accept the Theory o...
Pioneer

United States

#2663 Oct 19, 2013
EvilutionBuster wrote:
<quoted text>
1...Actually, we are not here to talk nasty about other people....We are here to discuss whether or not everyone believes the theory of evolution.....The obvious and already proven answer is NO.......
2...A troll is a mythical being, so therefore Maz cannot be one.
3...Since this is the internet and you cannot even see or smell Maz, you therefore have no way of knowing what her breath smells like.
4...Since Maz is not a troll, she cannot have troll breath......
5...If you expect to have any credibility as a debater on this thread, you will have to be civil, and stick to the topic, and offer something constructive.......,
6...The best thing you can do is to apologize or I, for one, will have no respect for you.......
These are all different people this evil vile womam calls trolls...IN CAST YOU ARE BLIND DEAF AND DUMB YOU WOULD KNOW THAT
I am Quoting the MAZhare, "I am a gentile and know I am not under law. You are an ignorant troll that keeps himself under law and feels justified on account of it, so that scripture can only apply to you, not me. You again demonstrate you are a scriptural imbecile."

MAZ has called everyone a troll that disagrees with her that is the first time I called her a troll for she truly is far worse more quotes from the filthy Maz..."Yep, this above is more hyperbole you can't scripturally support.
I love the fact that you have been reduced to a gibbering troll like your bed partners that you condemn behind your church doors. LOL! HYpocrites! Gerhard is just another lost cultist"

Some more quotes from the filthy Maz. calling three others names of which you are guilty likewise in her sins...Birdbrain, PioneerRat and Laywok don't count because they never scripturally back their spam.

MazHere wrote:

"You misread my post. I am calling you an empty vessel because you and Laywok are scripture less trolls and I am not."

So EvilutionBuster, YOU NEED NOT DEFEND SOMETHING THAT IS EVIL WHEN YOU DO NOT KNOW HER PAST POSTS.

STICK TO YOU OWN BUSINESS AND DO NOT INTERLOPE IN THINGS THAT DO NOT CONCERN YOU, THE BIBLE IS CLEAR ON THAT! YOU ARE CALLED A whisperer, and more.

1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity;

whisperers,


1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,


1:31 Without understanding,

covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same,

but have pleasure in them that do them.

...if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
2:26 And [that] they may recover themselves out of the

snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

so bug off interloper!

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#2664 Oct 19, 2013
olasonn wrote:
<quoted text>
Written by Jeffrey Tomkins, who has a master’s degree in plant science from 1990. How desperate do you have to be to ignore close to all experts relating to human genes and take the word of a guy educated in plants who just happens to believe in the same creator as you?
Also, here's from AiGs statement of faith:
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith
Do you really think anyone with such a clear bias can come to an objective view on anything? It's the complete opposite of science.
Listen olason, don't chase ghosts. You're nort going to get anywhere with me quoting other creationist sites. I don't need them, I can assure you.

I have posted ample research from evolutionary researchers to back every claim I have made. It is not my problem if you cannot understand it or are unable to understand the difference between the data and the hypothesis made of the data. eg Human chromosome 2 fusion.

So far you have posted nothing more than your opinion. You'll have to do better than that or this will get boring again.

The fusion site is not identical to the fusion of chimp 2a & 2b. Non human apes have a different chromosome count than mankind and there is no ancestral connection other than grabbing at straws.

Refute that claim, with more than your opinion or "They said so".

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#2665 Oct 19, 2013
Pioneer wrote:
<quoted text>
These are all different people this evil vile womam calls trolls...IN CAST YOU ARE BLIND DEAF AND DUMB YOU WOULD KNOW THAT
I am Quoting the MAZhare, "I am a gentile and know I am not under law. You are an ignorant troll that keeps himself under law and feels justified on account of it, so that scripture can only apply to you, not me. You again demonstrate you are a scriptural imbecile."
MAZ has called everyone a troll that disagrees with her that is the first time I called her a troll for she truly is far worse more quotes from the filthy Maz..."Yep, this above is more hyperbole you can't scripturally support.
I love the fact that you have been reduced to a gibbering troll like your bed partners that you condemn behind your church doors. LOL!!
I call you, BM and LW trolls because that is exactly what you are. You all call me names and make posts that have one line rubbsih saying I am led by satan, Mazhead, fuzzhead, etc etc, after I have posted a substantial post backed by scripture.

Your chasing me here, going through the trouble of looking for all my replies shown how much of a fanatic you are with no life to speak of.

Further to that the SDA line is that those born again from other faiths are NOT being led by satan and do not have the mark of the beast. You do not preach this. That is why you are an SDA heretic and you are, along with LW.

You are a troll and you have proven you are a troll. Further to that I have no shame in calling you a fanatical troll and that has nothing to do with your faith.

TROLL!

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#2666 Oct 19, 2013
Pioneer wrote:
<quoted text>
These are all different people this evil vile womam calls trolls...IN CAST YOU ARE BLIND DEAF AND DUMB YOU WOULD KNOW THAT
I am Quoting the MAZhare, "I am a gentile and know I am not under law. You are an ignorant troll that keeps himself under law and feels justified on account of it, so that scripture can only apply to you, not me. You again demonstrate you are a scriptural imbecile."
MAZ has called everyone a troll that disagrees with her that is the first time I called her a troll for she truly is far worse
Here is a snip of Pioneers mouth. Nothing I have said compares to the foul and humiliating, sexist comments and outright substance less spam I have had to endure on other threads by some of these SDAs and Calvinists.

"Pioneer wrote:
<quoted text>
LETS TALK ABOUT TROLLS THE Mattedhairdo/MazHere IS FULL OF TROLL SPEW.
DENYING A "THUS SAITH THE LORD" FOR TWISTING SCRIPTURE AND SAYING THAT PREACHING AND TEACHING CONSTITUEDS WORSHIPPING, WHICH IS NO WHERE SANCTIONED IN THE WORD OF GOD.
WHAT A DESPERACT MOUTH OF A MOUTH FULL OF DUNG, Mattedhairdo/MazHere , YOU LOSE! YOUR A LIAR AND MINION OF THE DEVIL! "

This is what I get after posting substantial sciptural evidence that it is not wrong to worship God on Sunday. Acts 5:42, 7 day feasts etc etc.

This troll Pioneer is not satisfied spamming my discussions on other threads when he can't win a point, he is a creationist that is here to stalk and bag me while I am defending a point we likely agree on. These ones are not Christians and that has nothing to do with their faith or being an SDA, who are usually respectful.

Go away Pioneer, or contribute to the thread topic.

Since: Jan 08

San Mateo, CA

#2667 Oct 19, 2013
EvilutionBuster wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, incorrect, Pete....Why do you not study more and use some common logic??......Nothing in biology makes sense if evolution were to be true.....It is totally illogical, unscientific, and definitely not biologically sound for evolution to be true.......Do you think it more biologically sound for some creature to design itself from the inside out and gradually turn itself into some other creature without any help from a designer and creator, as opposed to what we see all around us virtually every day of our lives.....Creatures following the set guidelines they have always followed..... bears remaining bears and staying within their kind....they do not have offspring that are not bears....they never have and they never will.......Evolution is one of the most nonsensical, illogical, unscientific and biologically unsound myths ever conceived by mankind.....
Peer-reviewed science?....Don't you mean peer-reviewed fantasy??
That is what it is.......And, of course, you are totally incorrect about your zeroes.........
The reason I don't ever answer your posts is because either you are a Poe or one of the most ignorant posters here on Topix.

I'm waiting for you to pull out "if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?"

You haven't the slightest idea what evolution predicts about our existence.

It's really sad, I wonder sometimes how people remain this ignorant. And am dumbfounded that our country have actual people who think what you post.

So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and call you a Poe.
Blind Faithiness

Arden, NC

#2668 Oct 20, 2013
Pete-o wrote:
<quoted text>
The reason I don't ever answer your posts is because either you are a Poe or one of the most ignorant posters here on Topix.le who think what you post.
So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and call you a Poe.
Pete, I came to the same conclusion after seeing how odd and illogical madhere's claims seem. His/her supernatural imaginations weren't part of any established dogma that I'd seen before, so I began to think "poe".

Then I looked on some other forums and found this(just one of many, many pages that the maz gets completely destroyed by fact & reality):
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...

He/she kept claiming to be a 'great debater' that only debates scientists when first popping up here. LOL! So, I was curious.

The reality is that maz is not a poe, just a creationist that has gone off the fundamentalist script in an effort to 'win' debates. Let's just say that that goal never panned out and maz continues to make more and more wacky, far-fetched excuses and scenarios to justify belief that has zero scientific basis. He/she has learned just enough 'science-y' language to get a foot in the door (or to make one wonder if maz is in fact a poe).

In other words, maz is just another apologist willing to use dishonesty and mind-numbing displays of broken logic to 'keep the dream alive'. I'm still getting lots of laughs from maz's silliness though, so I say let him/her keep digging that hole. The more illogical, less-than-truthful behavior maz shows, the more documented wackiness and dishonesty that exists on the record to use as evidence down the road.

I use the words of folks like maz on a regular basis to teach kids how they *don't* want to appear when defending an intellectual position. It seems to be a very effective motivational tool.**No one** wants to be the "mazhere" of an argument.

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#2669 Oct 20, 2013
Blind Faithiness wrote:
<quoted text>
Pete, I came to the same conclusion after seeing how odd and illogical madhere's claims seem. His/her supernatural imaginations weren't part of any established dogma that I'd seen before, so I began to think "poe".
Then I looked on some other forums and found this(just one of many, many pages that the maz gets completely destroyed by fact & reality):
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
I was not completely destroyed. I won the debate reducing evos to spam, like you. Look...

Here are some more facts and evolutionary blunders!

1. Creationist predictions and claims are continuing to be validated with 80% of the genome being found to be functional and the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional.
This continuing validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof of TOE, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in denial, suggest TOE never did or could make a prediction around non coding dna and deny that yet another evolutionary claim and irrefutable evidence for TOE has ended up in that huge rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc ...

2. Creationists predictions re vestigial organs being functional are continuing to be validated by evolutionists finding that these left over functionless organs do indeed have function. This validation comes after evolutionists found function in these organs and had to redefine the definition of vestigial to reflect ‘a different’ function.
http://www.naturalnews.com/022914_appendix_gu ...

3. Fossil evidence that is more in line with creationism then TOE. The Genesis account was the oldest account published that suggests the alignment of the fossil record from plants to creatures of the sea, then land animals and lastly mankind. Evos were not the first to come up with this line up. Whales and birds are the only ones that evos have out of biblical alignment . Surprise, surprise they have been having trouble with these two ever since. Evos are still confused over whale bones found in strata dated to 290mya and have had to invent mythical theropods to wear a reversed hallux although not one single theropod ever found has modern avian feet. The data supports creationism and the hubris supports TOE.
http://www.ehow.com/list_7182299_fossils-foun ...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68 ...

That was a great post and to date has not been refuted.

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#2670 Oct 20, 2013
Blind Faithiness wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
He/she kept claiming to be a 'great debater' that only debates scientists when first popping up here. LOL! So, I was curious.
The reality is that maz is not a poe, just a creationist that has gone off the fundamentalist script in an effort to 'win' debates. Let's just say that that goal never panned out and maz continues to make more and more wacky, far-fetched excuses and scenarios to justify belief that has zero scientific basis. He/she has learned just enough 'science-y' language to get a foot in the door (or to make one wonder if maz is in fact a poe).
In other words, maz is just another apologist willing to use dishonesty and mind-numbing displays of broken logic to 'keep the dream alive'. I'm still getting lots of laughs from maz's silliness though, so I say let him/her keep digging that hole. The more illogical, less-than-truthful behavior maz shows, the more documented wackiness and dishonesty that exists on the record to use as evidence down the road.
I use the words of folks like maz on a regular basis to teach kids how they *don't* want to appear when defending an intellectual position. It seems to be a very effective motivational tool.**No one** wants to be the "mazhere" of an argument.
It is not that I am a great debater is that most evos are use less when it comes to debating any point to its conclusion. Most evos have no idea about the science they defend and some creos don't either. All the uneducated can do is talk philosophy, not science. Philosophy is boring and circular.

Now you are a PI wasting your time researching me when I first started seaching for truth over a year ago. I feel so special. ROLF!

You are another great example of evos scurrying away and wasting thread space. I have tried to engage you all in several debates eg human ch2 & theoretical predictive ability etc, you all have ignored it in preference to ridicule and asides.

Are you going to engage in some scientific debate or are you just happy flapping your wings.
olasonn

Norway

#2671 Oct 20, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen olason, don't chase ghosts. You're nort going to get anywhere with me quoting other creationist sites. I don't need them, I can assure you.
Other sites?
It was from AiG, the same as you posted from.

And I see that you failed to address my questions. Your choice.

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#2672 Oct 20, 2013
olasonn wrote:
<quoted text>
Other sites?
It was from AiG, the same as you posted from.
And I see that you failed to address my questions. Your choice.
A poster asked for creationist research as if there is none and I gave him some on human chromosome 2 plus some evo research on it as well

Stop being a child. You will not win any argument that challenges the fact that very intelligent and well credentialled people do not accept TOE. That is the thread topic.

TOE is an overarching theory based on many assumptions, none of which all researchers agree with, apart from :it all evolved, somehow, someway, for some reason or no reason, somewhere.

Now, apart from that, if you reckon you can actually debate any scientific point I have made go ahead. Otherwise you obviously are interested in scoring meaningless points and are not appropriately educated in the science you are trying to defend. Hence, you best scientific reply will be "they said so".

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#2673 Oct 20, 2013
Olasonn and BlindFaith

Here are 3 lines of evidence for creation. Two speak to theoretical predictability and one speaks to the fossil record. Feel free to take me up on any, or offer 3 of your own points of evidence for TOE and we'll discuss them.

Can you or can't you do more than talk about generalities? Don't forget the majority of the scientific community have been wrong plenty of times before eg Human knuckle walking ancestry, single celled LUCA, junk DNA.

1. Creationist predictions and claims are continuing to be validated with 80% of the genome being found to be functional and the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional.
This continuing validation comes after evolutionists suggested 'junk dna' was proof of TOE, there was no designer, God would not make junk, and creos were scientifically ignorant and in denial.

Now evos are in denial, suggesting TOE never did or could make a prediction around non coding dna, Also Evolutionists deny that yet another evolutionary claim and irrefutable empirical evidence for TOE has ended up in the rubbish bin.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc ...

2. Creationists predictions re vestigial organs being functional are continuing to be validated by evolutionists finding that these left over functionless organs do indeed have function. This validation comes after evolutionists found function in these organs and had to redefine the definition of vestigial to reflect ‘a different’ function.
http://www.naturalnews.com/022914_appendix_gu ...

3. Fossil evidence that is more in line with creationism then TOE. The Genesis account was the oldest account published that suggests the alignment of the fossil record from plants to creatures of the sea, then land animals and lastly mankind. Evos were not the first to come up with this line up. Whales and birds are the only ones that evos have out of biblical alignment . Surprise, surprise they have been having trouble with these two ever since.

Evos are still confused over whale bones found in strata dated to 290mya, basilosaurus that predates it ancestors, and have had to invent mythical theropods to wear a reversed hallux although not one single theropod ever found has modern avian feet. The fossil evidence supports creationism and assumptions supports TOE.
http://www.ehow.com/list_7182299_fossils-foun ...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68 ...

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#2674 Oct 20, 2013
olasonn wrote:
<quoted text>
Written by Jeffrey Tomkins, who has a master’s degree in plant science from 1990. How desperate do you have to be to ignore close to all experts relating to human genes and take the word of a guy educated in plants who just happens to believe in the same creator as you?
Also, here's from AiGs statement of faith:
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith
Do you really think anyone with such a clear bias can come to an objective view on anything? It's the complete opposite of science.
Just to humour you let me tell you that any particular religions, or sites statement of faith does not inform the evolution/creation debate any more than Santa does or your faiths statement of faith does. I could also use a plethora of research from both ID and old earth bases. I am not an IDer or a YEC.

The point is, I have presented research from evolutionary researchers in my post above so your aside about statements of faith is just another walk down the garden path to nowhere at all.

Again, if the best you can do is demand answers to questions about the irrelevant then any scientific debate with you is not really worth pursuing.
Levi

London, UK

#2675 Oct 20, 2013
Well Blind Faithiness and Olasonn didn't reply to my earlier posts, so perhaps they accept hem which is good.

One of the key points I've made before is that although I believe in evolution it is not 'a fact'. And I've noticed that some evolutionists get carried away and believe parts are facts.

I continued to explain that the dominating science is not a fact, it is a model, and the best model we have. It's a model because it can be changed at any moment when new evidence arrives. Not a fact. And I also explained that any new evidence meant an updating of the theory, and what was previously considered wrong, can often times now be considered right.

This was demonstrated quite clearly recently relating to the results of research into the skulls of homo erectus that has significantly changed the theory of evolution at least with regard to man. The principle of evolution still remains, but the theory has changed somewhat. Not facts. I hope this has been a humbling experience for those who don't understand that science is only a temporary model and not certain or corrct or permanent(and that's what makes it so great!)
olasonn

Norway

#2676 Oct 20, 2013
MazHere wrote:
You will not win any argument that challenges the fact that very intelligent and well credentialled people do not accept TOE. That is the thread topic.
I'm not here to win any arguments, are you?
The only people refusing to accept the ToE is people with a clear religious bias and a very specific interpretation of some creation myth. Sure, some of them might be intelligent, but indoctrination and faith has a way of scewing ones mind...even if they otherwise in life can make rational decisions.
olasonn

Norway

#2677 Oct 20, 2013
Levi wrote:
Well Blind Faithiness and Olasonn didn't reply to my earlier posts, so perhaps they accept hem which is good.
I've been extremely busy and in a brand new relationship so time has been even more of a factor. I have missed several pages of posts and won't have the time to go back and read it all.
Levi wrote:
One of the key points I've made before is that although I believe in evolution it is not 'a fact'.
It's actually both.
Levi wrote:
And I've noticed that some evolutionists get carried away and believe parts are facts.
There is a difference between "evolution" and "the Theory of Evolution".

Do you understand what this means?
Blind Faithiness

Arden, NC

#2678 Oct 20, 2013
I've already addressed this line of wackiness, silly person. I entertained your "junk DNA" vague assertion-fest and asked why these creationists never published. You **never** responded. Instead you chose to gish gallop along down the road of vague generalities and hypocritical ridiculousness. As I said, keep it coming. I love watching you make a fool of yourself with transparent theatrics.

"junk DNA" #2510: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/seventh-d...

++++++++++

You chose instead to talk about a "Mr Attitude"? which revealed your obvious trollishness. You still haven't addressed any of the responses and instead chose to ask the same questions. All typical (and boring) troll behavior. I'll just recycle my response to you from the first time you spilled your "creative" understandings of science and history on the thread.

__________post #2531

BF: "So, now we know 2 important things about mazhere's argument and view:

1) The mechanism for change is not important(meaning that maz is not interested in a scientific approach and is simply posturing). "It doesn't matter how god created"--maz

2) Generalizing is ideal, as opposed to addressing the reality in academia, where there always are and have been many competing ideas about all new science/evidence(which may be inconvenient to his/her agenda).

The logic from point 2 follows that if anything any evolution scientist (or related field) ever published/asserted/studied is attributed to the generalized form 'evo', implying every single person to ever accept evolution thinks exactly the same things(LOL!!!!!), the same holds for creationists. This means, using the logical implications that follow mazhere's use of generalization, any/all ridiculous things put forth **ever** by creationists must be accounted for by any/all creationists from now til forever.

Logic is a two-way street, and mazhere is stepping out in on-coming traffic without looking both ways. LOL!

So, Ken Hamm has some interesting(/sarc) things to say. Hope you're ready to answer for each and every one of them. Once we finish with Ray, we'll move to the rest of the Youtube creationists. There couldn't be more than a few thousand ridiculous videos with ridiculous claims for you to creationists to explain.

So, start by explaining how humans used to ride around on dinosaurs, as creationists have claimed...or maybe learn what a happens in the real world of academic science and competing ideas. Ah, who are we kidding, right. You'll have better luck trying to explain humans riding on dinosaurs."

So, what did the kangaroos eat as they hopped back to Australia? Why don't you bother to respond to questions? Oh, yea, that's right. You're a troll. Probably a kid, considering the poor quality of trollmanship.
Blind Faithiness

Arden, NC

#2679 Oct 20, 2013
Levi, you lost me when you started talking about "feeling people when they walk in a room", dude. It was a left turn away from a science discussion and entered the realm of the anecdotal. I just preferred not to go down that path with ya. If you can "feel" when people are angry, you should call Randi and get paid. Just remember that intuition isn't telepathy. I'm not trying to be rude to you, but my time is limited to specific topics.
Levi

London, UK

#2680 Oct 20, 2013
olasonn wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been extremely busy and in a brand new relationship so time has been even more of a factor. I have missed several pages of posts and won't have the time to go back and read it all.
<quoted text>
It's actually both.
<quoted text>
There is a difference between "evolution" and "the Theory of Evolution".
Do you understand what this means?
The third time now, when you've questioned my understanding yet in all three cases it has been your understanding that was the problem. But to answer you, yes. I understand.
Levi

London, UK

#2681 Oct 20, 2013
Blind Faithiness wrote:
Levi, you lost me when you started talking about "feeling people when they walk in a room", dude. It was a left turn away from a science discussion and entered the realm of the anecdotal. I just preferred not to go down that path with ya. If you can "feel" when people are angry, you should call Randi and get paid. Just remember that intuition isn't telepathy. I'm not trying to be rude to you, but my time is limited to specific topics.
I understand Blind Faithiness. I am not interested in calling Randi (and as I said, that prize has been withdrawn). It wouldn't meet some scientific standards, yet it is science. Quantum theory does NOT meet scientific standards. Scientific standards had to be changed to accommodate quantum theory. I've studied it so I know. The standard of repeatable results does not apply in quantum mechanics, yet it is deemed as a core part of science. Think on this for a while.

So lets concentrate on Quantum mechanics and how it in many cases cannot give a repeatable experiment given the same initial conditions.

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#2682 Oct 20, 2013
olasonn wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not here to win any arguments, are you?
The only people refusing to accept the ToE is people with a clear religious bias and a very specific interpretation of some creation myth. Sure, some of them might be intelligent, but indoctrination and faith has a way of scewing ones mind...even if they otherwise in life can make rational decisions.
Your ignorant stereotyping of all evolutionary scientists cannot be right because there is such a thing as theist evolutionists. The pope has accepted TOE. There goes your ignorant argument of religious bias down the drain hole.

It appears you are the one with the screwed mind, because you cannot intelligently discuss the theory you reckon is fact and you attack the rubbsih you make up. Good Plan!!!???.

The thread topic has been answered, obviously. I am only here is there is someone that wants to debate or discuss the veracity of either theory on abit higher level than 'they said so'.

What you appear to be saying is you don't want to talk any scientific point to its conclusion to see which appears the more credible. What you do want to do is maintain the wobbly argument, that the majority rules because they said so, regardless of the fact that the majority having been wrong many times before. OK, got ya! Bye....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Seventh-day Adventist Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Do these SDA members want to be friends or... 20 min Saved By Grace 18
What Was DONE AWAY WITH??? 26 min BARNS Bro 150
ZOG...What does everyone think of this person? ... 37 min Zog Has-fallen 198
ACTS 9: 7 or ACTS 22 : 9 ?? (Sep '15) 47 min JesusWasNOTaJew G... 66
Repentace, Jesus' Style (Feb '16) 54 min JesusWasNOTaJew G... 544
When Did the Old Covenant End and the New Coven... 1 hr Saved By Grace 92
+++ WHY ARE SABBATH HATERS ON a SDA FORUM +++ (Dec '13) 3 hr Gerhard Ebersoehn 953
More from around the web