Moderator: Community Team
jonesthecurl wrote:I would have thought that if these words were saved up orally for some while, then later written down, that this might cast some doubt (even for you) on various "fulfilled prophecies". According to you, at what point were the various parts of the Bible written down?
their stories of old were passed on from father to son
Viceroy63 wrote:
If Dinosaurs were alive on the planet even up to a thousand or so years ago it would totally blow evolution right out of the water. Say if Dinosaur Blood were found inside of a fossilized bone? How could you then say it was millions of years old and still be fresh?
Viceroy63 wrote:
If there is evidence that proves that Dinosaurs have lived along side of us and perhaps still are would you be willing to examine it?
Viceroy63 wrote:T
God will be just as God is just.
It is us who have the responsibility to look into a matter an search out the truth. It is our choice!
Viceroy63 wrote:DoomYoshi wrote:There is a word for ball. (Isaiah 22:18)
I looked into this word, "Ball" and it is Strong's word H1754, "Duwr" Pronounced Dure. It is also used to represent a Circle or simply another word for "Circle." Only with a slight variation because the word in Isaiah 40:22 is referring to the equatorial line of the earth. Isaiah could have simply said "He who sitteth upon the earth and just left it at that. But instead he was being descriptive about the earth and thus showing the knowledge that they had about the earth.
We need to remember that the Bible is a simple book for simple people who simply had advance understanding of the universe around them. How else would they have known at the time, that the earth hung on nothing in empty space when all the world believed that the world was stood upon something.
"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing.'
-Job 26:7
Viceroy63 wrote:The truth is always, Self Evident!
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.
Viceroy63 wrote:Thanks for the new site.
The truth is always, Self Evident!
Viceroy63 wrote: In the Original Post I have dropped dozen's of links to other articles that explain that evolution has not only never happened on this planet and can not happen but also that the evidence in favor of Darwinian evolution, The displays and the bones, is being misrepresented and in a lot of those cases are simply hoaxes.
Crazyirishman wrote:Why is this thread still active? I haven't posted here since December and I doubt that any progress has been made.
tzor wrote:Crazyirishman wrote:Why is this thread still active? I haven't posted here since December and I doubt that any progress has been made.
This is the thread that will never die.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Viceroy63 wrote: In the Original Post I have dropped dozen's of links to other articles that explain that evolution has not only never happened on this planet and can not happen but also that the evidence in favor of Darwinian evolution, The displays and the bones, is being misrepresented and in a lot of those cases are simply hoaxes.
No, mostly you just showed us how little you know of evolution.
and folks here, far from your claim of ignoring "your evidence" have pretty much followed your links, listened to your videos and those others have posted, but you are utterly unwilling to even ANSWER many of the questions we have posed to you.
Metsfanmax wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:Wow, you actually read that long ass OP? My hat's off to you, Mets.
Hell no. I responded to the part that was actually relevant to public education decisions, and ignored all the religious nonsense.
Army of GOD wrote:1.4/10 for making me reply
betiko wrote:I just read his first 5 points and had a great laugh given the irony of the title of the thread!
I don't understand how can people be so blinded by their beliefs... "the rise of ignorance", thank you for sharing yours!
betiko wrote:There is nothing as stupid and dangerous as blind faith.
comic boy wrote:I like to give the benefit of doubt to the apparently feeble minded
SirSebstar wrote:dude, you may believe whatever your mind is capable of grasping. Myself, i keep reminding myself that it took a comittee to deside on wether or not jesus was holy.. and who made the cut what storys made the bible and what did not...
myself, i think the faulty version of the theory of evolution makes better sense then a (unspecified, because there are multiple versions) bible.
I do keep wondering why we as a people allow fanatics to indoctrinate people with what is obviously anti social and unhealthy thinking? and yes, i mean by that religious people.I have never had an atheist scream in my face that i needed to be saved, and christians just wont go away even when asked
Lootifer wrote:Blergh why do we even bother (@Viceroy or whatever his name is, not you sabotage)
Lootifer wrote:Go away Viceroy, you contribute nothing to this community.
There are very few people that believe a single word you have said in this thread. And the only reason its 5 pages is a testament to the retarded fact that we as humans much prefer the negative discussion (i.e. conflict/argument) over the positive discussion (e.g. spending time with your kids is great and increases the likelihood they will be successful, #tumbleweed).
So i beg of you; please go away; you will not change any of us, and likewise we will not change you. Its pointless so please please please stop posting.
Baron Von PWN wrote:GreecePwns wrote:Ain't reading this thread.
Nope. You can't make me do it. Ya just can't.
Here is an executive summaryviceroy63 wrote: LALALALALALALALALALALALALA I"M NOT LISTENING LALALALALALALALALALALALALAeveryone else wrote: lol wut?
crispybits wrote:I don't talk to trolls. Goodbye.
Symmetry wrote:TLDR: Viceroy hasn't read Darwin, equates Darwin's theories with modern evolutionary theory. Next up, Viceroy takes on the "Newtonists", or as people with a degree of sense call them, Physicists.
oss spy wrote:Anyone who thinks the Theory of Evolution is certifiably stupid and should be ignored. There is no debate and I wish threads like these were locked due to the misinformation and ignorance that is spread.
Army of GOD wrote:how is this thread still alive?
DoomYoshi wrote:](*,)
Viceroy, go to hell.
betiko wrote:blablabla! no one has time to read your posts viceroy, nor plays your videos.
which monkey from your signature is closest to your humanoid form?
Viceroy63 wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Viceroy63 wrote: In the Original Post I have dropped dozen's of links to other articles that explain that evolution has not only never happened on this planet and can not happen but also that the evidence in favor of Darwinian evolution, The displays and the bones, is being misrepresented and in a lot of those cases are simply hoaxes.
No, mostly you just showed us how little you know of evolution.
and folks here, far from your claim of ignoring "your evidence" have pretty much followed your links, listened to your videos and those others have posted, but you are utterly unwilling to even ANSWER many of the questions we have posed to you.
Yeah, right???
PLAYER57832 wrote:Viceroy63 wrote: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.
by Viceroy63
[1] Evolution is taught and accepted as factual evidence when in fact there is no factual evidence to support the Theory of Evolution.
Evolution is not taught as fact. It is taught as a scientific theory, which does have a LOT of factual evidence to support it, though it is true there is not 100% definitive proof.Viceroy63 wrote:The theory of Evolution purposes that life evolved gradually over millions if not billions of years from single cell organisms to the complex life that exist today on the planet. But where is the evidence in the rocks to support this.
All around the Earth. Look particularly in any sedimentary rock formation. Not all contain fossils, but many do. Or you could just visit a few museums, many of which have fossils on display -- along with (if it is a good museum) a bit about where and how the fossil was collected and/or what is known about it. (museums have all that, but highlight specific bits for various displays )Viceroy63 wrote:[2] Evidence "in the rocks" or fossils (fossilized remains), is what is used to explain evolution and the diversity of life on the planet. Yet there is a problem with the fossil records. There are no intermediate species depicting this. You would think that if the fossil records is what is used to teach evolution as fact and reason for the origin of life on the planet that the fossil records would be without question. Yet there remains great gaps or holes in the records in the rocks for evolution to be taught as fact. And yet it is.
I see, so if I say 1,2, ?, 4,5,6, ?,7 you cannot possibly figure out what the missing numbers are because there are gaps?
We know that life differing a great deal from what we see around us existed earlier. We can see that some forms more like what we see, including some that are identical to what we see today (horseshoe crabs, the nautilus are all ancient types) and we see some that seem to represent something like what a transition species might be -- Ceolocanths, for example.
Also, there is no other theory that explains the evidence we have... period. There just isn't.Viceroy63 wrote:[3] The gaps are simple to understand when you realize that the Theory explains that life evolved "gradually" over millions of years. That word "gradually," is the key to understanding the gaps. If it takes millions of years for one species to evolve into another, then there should be millions of years worth of fossilized remains everywhere showing the gradual changes over all those millions of years. You just don't show a dinosaur and then a bird and say, "walla," evolution, see!
Why? The processes to form fossils are very specific and tricky. Its actually pretty amazing that we have as many fossils as we have.
Besides.. the fact is that fossils exist and no one has come up with a better explanation than evolution. That IS fact.Viceroy63 wrote:[4] One could argue, "but how?" and the debate would go something like this; "Don't you see the similarities in the bone structures of the arms of the dinosaur and the wings of the bird? Why they are practically identical!" But what about the intermediate species that evolved between the dinosaur and the bird? well it turns out that the fossil records is not perfect or that we have yet to find them? Then why is evolution taught as fact in schools everywhere when it is not a proven fact?
Ironically enough, several bird transition species have been found. Ironically enough, even the T-rex is one... or were you not aware of that?Viceroy63 wrote:[5] Charles Darwin, who wrote, "The Origin of Species," devoted an entire chapter explaining the problem with evolution or as we would say today, debunking his own work.
Not quite.. but go ahead.Darwin thought, nay make that "assumed", because its closer to the truth, that the Earth was far younger than it is today. Also, if you were to continue, you would find his answers to the above.. along with those of many other people.Viceroy63 wrote:[6] The Origin of Species:
by Charles Darwin
Chapter 9: On the Imperfection of the Geological Record
"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
(The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, 1859)
This is actually called "countering the opposition". You try to think of any objection others might have.. and then deal with it, or acknowledge it as a problem yet to be solved.
Darwin did not know what we do about genetics, plate techtonic -- or many other things.See above.Viceroy63 wrote:[7] Darwin saw the fault in his own theory yet he blamed the rocks for not being adequate record keepers. LOL.
[8] "The faults lie not in our stars but with ourselves."
(Shakespeare)
[9] He believed in his theory at the time, except for the fact that the fossil records did not support his theory. At least not yet. But perhaps one day all those intermediate species would be found, some how? At least that is what was hoped for. Yet he could not understand why there were not any found at the time when there should be as many intermediate fossils as there are fossils of anything else.
You are proving nothing, not really saying anything here. Tehre are gaps.. so what?
There was life before, there is life now.. and while there is not a full and complete set of transitions for every single line of species, there are plenty of transitions and lines evidenced in the fossil record.
And.. again, no other theory has been presented that better answers the data we have. This is significant. Its one thing to say that evolution might not be true.. fine, few will disagree. But for it to matter, you have to present a competing theory that equally answers ALL the evidence. Just saying "we cannot fully prove evolution right now" isn't enough.Viceroy63 wrote:[10] 140 years later Professor Steve Jones of University College London published an updated version of Darwin’s "Origin of Species" in 1999, the fossil records still posed the same problems and gaps.
Not quite. Some gaps still exist, but a multitude of gaps and answers were found between Darwin's publication and 1999.Yeah, Darwin thought change should be constant and gradual. We know differently now. Try reading up on modern evolution not just what was thought at the turn of the century.Viceroy63 wrote:"The fossil record - in defiance of Darwin's whole idea of gradual change - often makes great leaps from one form to the next. Far from the display of intermediates to be expected from slow advance through natural selection many species appear without warning, persist in fixed form and disappear, leaving no descendants. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution.”
(Professor Steve Jones, Almost Like a Whale, p. 252)Viceroy63 wrote:[11] Notice how in 1999, Professor Steve Jones called it a "Theory of Evolution." He stated that creatures seemed to be coming into existence almost as if they were "Created" (supernaturally, although he does not use that word, I do) from nothing but the earth. They just came into existence, lived, danced, laughed and then just died out and never even left a forwarding address. LOL.
He shows nothing against evolution. Sorry, but he doesn't. Natural selecton creates species that are highly adapted. There is no reason to change unless the environment around changes. It more complicated that that, of course, but the fossil record shows long periods of relative stasis, relatively little change.. then cateclysms happen causing massive die-offs and new sets of species (along with some unchanged species) appear.
It makes sense if you think about what happens --- something kills off most of the species, leaving just a few to reproduce. If the environment is changing again quickly, then the same thing might happen again.. and again. However, note that this "relatively quick" time period is thousands of years in length.
You just have to look around us today to see such a period of massiv die-offs. In fact, the die-offs seen today are essentially unriveled in Earth's history.
Or, you can study up on what happens when people use antibiotics, particularly incorrectly.
Viceroy63 wrote: [large segment deleted]
To Be Concluded...
I could only deal with the first bit now. When I have time, I can go back and go over the rest of your claims.
Then again, you might just review one of these threads:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=114455&hilit=creation+versus
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29535&p=2152183&hilit=creation+versus#p2152183
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=87553&p=2043214&hilit=creation+versus#p2043214
or a few others.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Viceroy63 wrote:While the whole world may be enveloped in an evolutionary deception, more and more scientist and Archeologist and just plain intelligent people with degrees and PhD's are coming around to the truth of the fact that the evidence against evolution is overwhelming.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Viceroy63 wrote: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.
by Viceroy63
[1] Evolution is taught and accepted as factual evidence when in fact there is no factual evidence to support the Theory of Evolution.
Evolution is not taught as fact. It is taught as a scientific theory, which does have a LOT of factual evidence to support it, though it is true there is not 100% definitive proof.
Neoteny wrote:And.. again, no other theory has been presented that better answers the data we have. This is significant. Its one thing to say that evolution might not be true.. fine, few will disagree. But for it to matter, you have to present a competing theory that equally answers ALL the evidence. Just saying "we cannot fully prove evolution right now" isn't enough.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: ConfederateSS, mookiemcgee