Moderator: Community Team
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
jonesthecurl wrote:He who begins by loving Christianity better than Truth will proceed by loving his own sect or church better than Christianity, aned end by loving himself better than all.
(Coleridge)
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
jonesthecurl wrote:(Coleridge)He who begins by loving Christianity better than Truth will proceed by loving his own sect or church better than Christianity, aned end by loving himself better than all.
betiko wrote:viceroy has challenged me in a trench warfare game
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 4#p4068644
looking for some trips/quads for a evolutionists/creationists smackdown; who's up for team evolution?
mejihn7779 wrote:Not sure if anyone has posted this yet, but here is the science behind creation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... X9eDTNfQHY
comic boy wrote:mejihn7779 wrote:Not sure if anyone has posted this yet, but here is the science behind creation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... X9eDTNfQHY
The guys 'proof ' is an article he wrote himself , solid science that
Viceroy63 wrote:comic boy wrote:mejihn7779 wrote:Not sure if anyone has posted this yet, but here is the science behind creation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... X9eDTNfQHY
The guys 'proof ' is an article he wrote himself , solid science that
Einsteins 'proof' was an article that he wrote himself also.
But nobody denies the logic behind the theory of relativity.
Did you really understand that explanation?
Here, watch it again...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... X9eDTNfQHY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z43s4tx9CxM
Now obviously these explanation don't explain the distances of light years that we see from the universe so there must be something else here not covered. Yet!
Viceroy63 wrote:comic boy wrote:mejihn7779 wrote:Not sure if anyone has posted this yet, but here is the science behind creation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... X9eDTNfQHY
The guys 'proof ' is an article he wrote himself , solid science that
Einsteins 'proof' was an article that he wrote himself also.
But nobody denies the logic behind the theory of relativity.
Frigidus wrote:Seriously though, people need to stop posting videos and start typing out their arguments. I am just straight up not going to watch a half hour video. I value my time too much.
Frigidus wrote:Seriously though, people need to stop posting videos and start typing out their arguments. I am just straight up not going to watch a half hour video. I value my time too much.
betiko wrote:bring on your creationist team viceroy (if you can find 2, i doubt it!), we're game with bbs and crispybits to solve this on the battlefield. whoever loses stops posting on this thread!
if your imaginary friend exists he will give your team the dice I guess.
Viceroy63 wrote:By Creationist; All of them!
And it's still science if the observations are logical.
The question is really why would a logically concluding theory be accepted while another logically concluding theory not be accepted?
I have a theory that explains this. People who simply want to "kill" God, do not accept any logically concluding Theory that has anything to do with God.
Viceroy63 wrote:By Creationist; All of them!
And it's still science if the observations are logical.
The question is really why would a logically concluding theory be accepted while another logically concluding theory not be accepted?
I have a theory that explains this. People who simply want to "kill" God, do not accept any logically concluding Theory that has anything to do with God.
AAFitz wrote:Viceroy63 wrote:By Creationist; All of them!
And it's still science if the observations are logical.
The question is really why would a logically concluding theory be accepted while another logically concluding theory not be accepted?
I have a theory that explains this. People who simply want to "kill" God, do not accept any logically concluding Theory that has anything to do with God.
I hate to poke another hole in another one of your "theories", but many of the scientists that you suggest want to "kill" God, actively believe and worship him as well, but still believe in evolution, because the actual science behind it, is beyond reproach.
It is you that have let your beliefs affect your view of the evidence, and are therefore the illogical one, and as such, perhaps the most hypocritical being in existence....and if that's a stretch, which it is, certainly you hold the crown in CC land.
Viceroy63 wrote:AAFitz wrote:Viceroy63 wrote:By Creationist; All of them!
And it's still science if the observations are logical.
The question is really why would a logically concluding theory be accepted while another logically concluding theory not be accepted?
I have a theory that explains this. People who simply want to "kill" God, do not accept any logically concluding Theory that has anything to do with God.
I hate to poke another hole in another one of your "theories", but many of the scientists that you suggest want to "kill" God, actively believe and worship him as well, but still believe in evolution, because the actual science behind it, is beyond reproach.
It is you that have let your beliefs affect your view of the evidence, and are therefore the illogical one, and as such, perhaps the most hypocritical being in existence....and if that's a stretch, which it is, certainly you hold the crown in CC land.
Please, Poke away! And don't let the fact that you twist my words bother you in the slightest, while you're doing all of your "poking away." OK.
I never said "scientist" who want to kill God but rather "People," as in people in general of whom some of them do play the role of the "scientist" from time to time. But it's People who generally want to Kill God.
There are true Scientist out there and they do go on record for being anti-envolutionist. Because the theory of evolution has no foundation to go against established facts. You and I for example, are compose of carbon based molecules. That is to say dirt of the earth. Who established this fact before scientist ever figured it out? The Bible did of course.
"And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground..."
Genesis 2:7
If the Bible was so full of shit as some would presume it is, then how would it get so many things right, and right of the bat as it does? If it is merely some fable then why did this imaginary god not make man from fire or star light? The facts are the facts and they are recorded for us to see in the bible first, before any so called scientist actually figured them out.
But here also is my point. If all of those called God of the Bible, and that is what I am talking about, "God of the Bible" believing scientist; If those scientist who believe in the theory of evolution are actually God fearing, God believing Christians, then how can they also go against the very words of God and say that Man evolved from a common ancestor of lower form of animals on the planet? When the Bible specifically states that the only evolution that actually took place was that of Dirt evolving into Man in a mere matter of moments?
I would think that any scientist who believes that man evolved from lower life forms and at the same time consider themselves "believers" of god??? Well, these are the true hypocrites and thank you for pointing that out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjprkQbOouQ
Return to Out, out, brief candle!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users