Creation v Evolution argument can end

Evolutionary Predictions

a reply to: Raggedyman
Hehehe still going huh?

You cannot provide empirical evidence you were born.

Does that mean that you weren't?

Or does it mean we just have to use abstract thought to come to a conclusion?

originally posted by: coldlikecustard
a reply to: Raggedyman You did the same to me when I asked a question of your faith.

Bottom line is the is no absolute empirical proof of evolution likewise there is no absolute empirical proof of god.

Now like you have been told before numerous times before there is plenty of evidence for evolution observable repeatable and testable can you say the same for god?

Now shocker is I believe in a creator as you do although I would not subscribe to any religion and quite frankly your behaviour towards people in this thread has been entirely un-Christian.

The difference clc is I am not stupid enough to be arguing evidence for God
I am just asking for empirical evidence for evolution

This thread is not about God

Now what you believe is not my buisness, I asked for empirical evidence for evolution, if you have some, don't be a Fraidy cat, post it

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
Evolutionary Predictions

I love that word in the title, predictions

I can predict a winning horse at the races, Nostradamus a earthquake, many on here different presidents

I am a believer now

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Raggedyman
Hehehe still going huh?

You cannot provide empirical evidence you were born.

Does that mean that you weren't?

Or does it mean we just have to use abstract thought to come to a conclusion?

That's called a strawman argument, that's what I get condemned for doing all the time

You shouldn't do that

a reply to: Raggedyman You clearly did not comprehend my last post. This does not surprise me though I mean the bible is essentially a moral guide on how not to be a complete cockwomble seems you missed the message there too...

a reply to: Raggedyman

There is nothing rational about creation, it's a faith

I dont really agree. It Depends on how you and everyone else understand what you read from genesis Chapter 1.

Because it doesnt state that God created life on Earth at all.

God said:

- Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind.

- And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life.

According to genesis Chapter 1. The first Life on Earth was started by the waters. That is not that far of what is stated within science.

- Great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind.

The verse starts out With stating that God created. But the verse explaines what really formed the life. The water brought forth.....

- And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Verse 25 state that God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind. But verse 24 explaines really what made the beasts of the Earth.

One can Draw a conclution from this, and that is that the singularity was formed With all the Properties to form life as described in Genesis Chapter 1.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Just pointing out that by following your code of only believing in empirical evidence it leaves a lot that you will never know. Including whether you were born or not.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I am a believer now

Yes, we already knew. But good for you mate!

Admittance is the first step to recovery.

Perhaps you would like to make an actual rebuttal?

The video isn't too in depth, but is informative.

Predictions, aye. And when those predictions are correct it bodes well for those theories that made them.

So do you care to address anything? From the video, or thread?

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Raggedyman

There is nothing rational about creation, it's a faith

I dont really agree. It Depends on how you and everyone else understand what you read from genesis Chapter 1.

Because it doesnt state that God created life on Earth at all.

God said:

- Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind.

- And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life.

According to genesis Chapter 1. The first Life on Earth was started by the waters. That is not that far of what is stated within science.

- Great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind.

The verse starts out With stating that God created. But the verse explaines what really formed the life. The water brought forth.....

- And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Verse 25 state that God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind. But verse 24 explaines really what made the beasts of the Earth.

One can Draw a conclution from this, and that is that the singularity was formed With all the Properties to form life as described in Genesis Chapter 1.

I can't argue, the bible is definetly not a scientific document

I guess I just wanted to explain why I understand the evolution argument, it doesn't need a God

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I am a believer now

Yes, we already knew. But good for you mate!

Admittance is the first step to recovery.

Perhaps you would like to make an actual rebuttal?

The video isn't too in depth, but is informative.

Predictions, aye. And when those predictions are correct it bodes well for those theories that made them.

So do you care to address anything? From the video, or thread?

Underneath my post is a quote by Phage
Think of it as a reply to you from him

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Raggedyman

Just pointing out that by following your code of only believing in empirical evidence it leaves a lot that you will never know. Including whether you were born or not.

ok, then you win
Care to post the empirical evidence now

originally posted by: coldlikecustard
a reply to: Raggedyman You clearly did not comprehend my last post. This does not surprise me though I mean the bible is essentially a moral guide on how not to be a complete cockwomble seems you missed the message there too...

A cockwomble, that's an ad hominem, an ad hominem is not empirical evidence,its a sign of frustration that your argument is impotent, invalid

Reload, have another go

Try empirical evidence as opposed to ad hominins

a reply to: Raggedyman

So the answer is no.

I'm going to sound like a broken record, but...

You have nothing to say because you are 100% absolutely incapable of talking about this subject, in even the most basic of ways. You're uneducated on this subject completely, and demonstrate no desire to understand. If you do, and have simply chosen not to offer anything but your vitriol for 30+ pages, then you must be a troll (a very dedicated one at that).

The fact you still have an account here is disgusting.

Thanks for some entertainment at first, and even the frustration later.

May the Lord Satan and his son, the Lord Darwin, bless you Raggedy.



ETA: Please prove me wrong.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I can't argue, the bible is definetly not a scientific document

Correct. The bible is not a Scientific document. I dont think it was ment to be that either.

I guess I just wanted to explain why I understand the evolution argument, it doesn't need a God

But you have some explaining to do if you state the abowe.

a reply to: Raggedyman You have been told over and over for page after page spam thread after spam thread there IS NO EMPIRICAL PROOF either way do you get this yet???? how many threads will it take before it registers? There is only EVIDENCE and whenever people post it you dismiss it. I'm done here my point is made I have been perfectly clear you on the other hand are not looking to learn you are here wanting someone to agree with your own beliefs in order to stroke your oversized ego CUSTARD OUT

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Raggedyman

Just pointing out that by following your code of only believing in empirical evidence it leaves a lot that you will never know. Including whether you were born or not.

ok, then you win
Care to post the empirical evidence now

I never stated there was empirical evidence. In fact I'm happy to admit that empirical evidence does not exist to support evolution.

Just like it doesn't exist to support the "theory" that you were born.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

If Raggedyman was not born...
He is without beginning... He has always been...
He exists without anything else required...
This is sounding like an argument against evolution...
Or that you are referring to Raggedyman as God...

Sometimes stupid is just stupid...

It is undeniable and 100 percent factual that Raggedyman was born...
The cycle of life on earth is the empirical evidence you must have overlooked...
This has been observed and verified documented throughout history...
Unlike evolution...

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Please tell me, what you posted was that empirical or a prediction
I have wasted enough time on assumptions already, a prediction is an assumption

So no, not interested unless you can do better than a video that's probably a waste of my time

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Raggedyman

I can't argue, the bible is definetly not a scientific document

Correct. The bible is not a Scientific document. I dont think it was ment to be that either.

I guess I just wanted to explain why I understand the evolution argument, it doesn't need a God

But you have some explaining to do if you state the abowe.

Oops, the atheists evolution model, my error