Why will people argue Creation vs. Evolution when it is possible to have both?

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Do you have anything to add to the discussion such as evidence to support Tooth's Folly?

Probably not.

Maybe you have a position on how creationism can be in harmony with evolution?

reply to post by stereologist

That's right. That is what you post most of the time.

Wrong again, its your ignorance to Target Food which leads you to believe that.

Everyone reading this thread knows you have not provided even an inkling of evidence. Please post evidence supporting your claim. Your refusal simply means that all of your claims are worthless, unsubstantiated rubbish.

You are welcome to leave your folly in that state.

I don't have a folly, but it looks like you have a few.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Wrong again, its your ignorance to Target Food which leads you to believe that.

Wrong. It is your commentary about me that has been labeled non sequiturs. Please follow the thread.

I don't have a folly, but it looks like you have a few.

Please provide the first piece of evidence for this folly of yours aka Tooth's Folly.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Do you have anything to add to the discussion such as evidence to support Tooth's Folly?

Probably not.

Maybe you have a position on how creationism can be in harmony with evolution?

For you to understand what I think God is when I mention it, it would be easy for you to use the word 'Nature' Nature is God to me.

How about if you were stuck by amnesia and I showed you a computer. I tell you that computer has been around forever and nature built it. How would you know it was created? Did this computer have an evolution? Was it created by chance or intelligence? Do you not see the technology that nature is and realize its intelligently designed?


I dont subscribe to the Pantheistic theory and I dont think many people do but atheists or anti-christs like to think that this is what believers think. I dont blame them for rationally rejecting the idea of God if this is what they think of --->

"The Pantheistic theory makes of God a material being, who, though endowed with a supreme intelligence, would only be on a larger scale what we are on a smaller one. But, as matter is incessantly undergoing transformation, God, if this theory were true, would have no stability. He would be subject to all the vicissitudes, and even to all the needs, of humanity He would lack one of the essential attributes of the Divinity, namely, unchangeableness.

The properties of matter cannot be attributed to God without degrading our idea of the Divinity and all the subtleties of sophistry fail to solve the problem of His essential nature. We do not know what God is; but we know that it is impossible that He should not be and the theory just stated is in contradiction with His most essential attributes. It confounds the Creator with the creation, precisely as though we should consider an ingenious machine to be an integral portion of the mechanician who invented it.
The intelligence of God is revealed in His works, as is that of a painter in his picture; but the works of God are no more God Himself than the picture is the artist who conceived and painted it.
-Allan Kardec

Originally posted by Shadow HerderFor you to understand what I think God is when I mention it, it would be easy for you to use the word 'Nature' Nature is God to me.

So you consider the natural world, the material world, to be your god?

How about if you were stuck by amnesia and I showed you a computer. I tell you that computer has been around forever and nature built it. How would you know it was created? Did this computer have an evolution? Was it created by chance or intelligence? Do you not see the technology that nature is and realize its intelligently designed?

If someone suffered amnesia, completely losing everything they ever knew and the first person they met began lying to them/feeding them false information, chances are they'd believe the person lying to them as they wouldn't know any better.....

I dont subscribe to the Pantheistic theory and I dont think many people do but atheists or anti-christs like to think that this is what believers think.

Why is what you think any better than what other people think?

reply to post by Shadow Herder

How about if you were stuck by amnesia and I showed you a computer. I tell you that computer has been around forever and nature built it. How would you know it was created? Did this computer have an evolution? Was it created by chance or intelligence? Do you not see the technology that nature is and realize its intelligently designed?

Computers as a concept have evolved, but no computer evolves. They are as living organisms and each is stuck with its own identity. Unlike living organisms there is no connection between one computer and the next. Each computer has an independent origin. Nature on the other hand is not designed. Unlike each computer, a living organism is dependent on its parent or parents. The information passed on to a new organism by the parents is not changed for any particular goal. The eye of the insect, mollusc, horseshow crab, chordates, etc. are independent developments in nature.

Atheists are not anti-Christs. Are they simultaneously anti-buddhas, anti-Krishnas, anti-Jehovahs, anti-Moses, anti-whatevers? I know a few atheists and they are not anti-religion. In fact, all of them respect religion. Some even attend church. They like the ethics of religion. They just don't believe in the existence of god.

reply to post by stereologist

Wrong. It is your commentary about me that has been labeled non sequiturs. Please follow the thread.

There is no commentary about YOU, aside from you trolling here. There are no non sequiturs on my part, its your ignorance to target food that leads you to belive that.

Please provide the first piece of evidence for this folly of yours aka Tooth's Folly.

But I have already told you, I don't have a tooths folly.

reply to post by itsthetooth

There is no commentary about YOU, aside from you trolling here. There are no non sequiturs on my part, its your ignorance to target food that leads you to belive that.

Please provide the first piece of evidence to support this TF, aka Tooth's Folly. Stop the stalling and get started.

But I have already told you, I don't have a tooths folly.

Sure you do. You responded to the term tooth's folly in the following posts:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and in many other posts.

Please provide some evidence for your unsubstantiated claims.

reply to post by stereologist

Please provide the first piece of evidence to support this TF, aka Tooth's Folly. Stop the stalling and get started.

I'm sorry but I dont have any Tooths Folly. There is no stalling.

Please provide some evidence for your unsubstantiated claims.

There must be some confusion as I have been talking about Target Food. I don't know of anything called Tooths Folly, it would appear you have made it up.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I'm sorry but I dont have any Tooths Folly. There is no stalling.

You have not provided any evidence. Stop stalling. When are you going to provided evidence for your inane folly?

Here are posts where you responded without evidence to Tooth's Folly. Look in this post.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You know how inane TF is. That is why you have responded and acknowledged the name of Tooth's Folly.

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
This is not a mere matter of statement or of opinion. It is a fact as incontestably certain as is the motion of the earth, and one that theology itself can no longer refuse to admit, although this admission furnishes another example of the errors into which we are led by attributing literal truth to language which is often of a figurative nature. Are we therefore to conclude that the Bible is a mere tissue of errors? No; but we must admit that men have erred in their method of interpreting it.

Overwhelming evidence also shows that people cannot walk on water and that people cannot reanimate from a rotting corpse.
So, if you don't consider the bible to be the inherent word of your god, why give it any credence at all? And what signifiers have biblical scholars (experts) found that show when a passage should be taken literally or figuratively?

Maybe you should re read what you quoted.

If you dont understand, i could clarify it for you.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

How about if you were stuck by amnesia and I showed you a computer. I tell you that computer has been around forever and nature built it. How would you know it was created? Did this computer have an evolution? Was it created by chance or intelligence? Do you not see the technology that nature is and realize its intelligently designed?

Computers as a concept have evolved, but no computer evolves. They are as living organisms and each is stuck with its own identity. Unlike living organisms there is no connection between one computer and the next. Each computer has an independent origin. Nature on the other hand is not designed..

You speak from a position of ignorance and have a very narrow or substandard grasp of natural sciences. I suggest you spend 20 years or more studying before speaking on such subjects.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

You speak from a position of ignorance and have a very narrow or substandard grasp of natural sciences. I suggest you spend 20 years or more studying before speaking on such subjects.

Thanks for that laughable comment. Made me chuckle.

I notice how you always resort to attacking me instead of supporting your statements.

I suggest you spend more time backing up your hooey instead of lashing out like a petulant child.

reply to post by stereologist

You have not provided any evidence. Stop stalling. When are you going to provided evidence for your inane folly?

When are you going to provide evidence that animals experiment with food?

Here are posts where you responded without evidence to Tooth's Folly. Look in this post.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't have a tooths folly and you have never explained what it is. I'm sorry but your link is useless as it doesn't take you to the exact part your referring to.

You know how inane TF is. That is why you have responded and acknowledged the name of Tooth's Folly.

How could I acknowledge it, you never explained what it is. Target Food is not inane. Do you have some proof of any of these or are you just here to share your comments?

reply to post by itsthetooth

When are you going to provide evidence that animals experiment with food?

I have. Deer experiment with food regardless of the abundance. I showed they eat meat. I showed they eat toxic plants. I showed they eat dirt. I showed they eat rocks. All of this activity done regardless of the abundance of food.

When are you going to provide the first of evidence for your folly?

I don't have a tooths folly and you have never explained what it is. I'm sorry but your link is useless as it doesn't take you to the exact part your referring to.

That is a lie. The links take to the exact post where you acknowledge and respond to Tooth Folly.

How could I acknowledge it, you never explained what it is. Target Food is not inane. Do you have some proof of any of these or are you just here to share your comments? /quote]
Stop stalling. Please provide your first piece of evidence to support your claims of TF, aka Tooth's Folly.

Stereo and tooth. Please contain your petty arguments in a private room or at very least one thread.

Tooth, stereo will never understand.

Stereo- Give up, some people are going to have different understandings of things than you. Its ok.

To answer the thread. Yes, evolution and creation go hand in hand.

reply to post by stereologist

I have. Deer experiment with food regardless of the abundance. I showed they eat meat. I showed they eat toxic plants. I showed they eat dirt. I showed they eat rocks. All of this activity done regardless of the abundance of food.

Good, then we know its part of their diet, and not experimentation.

When are you going to provide the first of evidence for your folly?

I just did.

That is a lie. The links take to the exact post where you acknowledge and respond to Tooth Folly.

Those links take me to the top of a page, with no direction to which post your referring to.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Shadow, there is NO WAY that species can evolve. Any observed changes today by science is nothing more than adaptation, which has nothing to do with evolution, but was mistakenly given a section in the definition without any proof.

Species are suppose to have a specific food to eat.
This food renders all of the nutrients necessary for that species to live a healthy life. In other words species are NOT suppose to eat several different things. This all happened because god in his wisdom failed to recognize the fact that if you move a species to a different planet, it wont be healthy and will suffer if you don't provide its intended food along with it.

We know this is a fact because it states in the bible that all things were brought here, and also that humans were as well. It also states that nothing from our original home was brought here along with us, which would include our food. So we don't have our proper food to eat.

Humans are in a phase two diet of hunger.
Species in general are not just suppose to eat what ever, imagine that for a moment, it means sickness and sooner death which is obviously against common sense. It also means that each species is suppose to automatically know what they are suppose to eat thats good for them, and not eat whats bad for them. I don't know about you but I need a lab tecnician and a lot of test both with me, and the food to figure this out.

Species are just suppose to know this stuff automatically, I don't think so.
Species are directed to specific food. This is called Target Food, its a programming that was set in place durring the creation period. In order for this to take place, the creator must have had a fore knowledge about the food that is available as well. It may not prove a creator, but it sure proves intervention of some type, along with intelligence.

When Target Food is not available, the species goes after the next closest thing, to what they were programmed for. The reason we know this to be a fact is first of all, all units of a species eat the same thing. Of course this can be location sensitive because the food has to be available to be an option. You can look up the diet of any species, and will see that they only time that the diet differs is either because of season or location. The fact is, given the chance, they all eat the same thing as a unit. In addition, when they do have to deviate from diet, they will always go back to the original diet once given the chance, its becasue they will always have target food in first mind.

Because Target Food is not available, they move onto a phase one diet, this is where they will eat just about everything within a food group, but be aware, what we call a food group and what they call a food group could vary slightly.

In some cases the phase one diet disappears, as in the case of the squirrel, when out of season. So he moves on to phase two diet, where he actually picks up a new food group, where he started with being an herbivore, now he has moved onto eating insects and small rodents.

It's this pattern that proves why there never is any experimentation with food, they always know exactly what they are going after. Of cours non of this includes domesticate animals, as we dictate what they eat.

Our planet is in much turmoil right now because of all this life that was brought here together, and they aren't suppose to be together, so as a result most of them are dying off, from extinction. This can be witnessed in the wiki of extinctions where we have a total loss of 99% of all life at this point.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Good, then we know its part of their diet, and not experimentation.

According to your definition of a diet YOU ARE WRONG.


When are you going to provide the first of evidence for your folly? We are all waiting for you to provide evidence. When you stated "I just did. " everyone saw you are a liar because you have not.

Those links take me to the top of a page, with no direction to which post your referring to.

So you lie. We all know you have a great problem being truthful. Everyone can test the links to see that you are being untruthful - AGAIN!

reply to post by itsthetooth

Species are suppose to have a specific food to eat.

There we go again with this inane claim.