|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kendemyer Inactive Member |
TO: Schrafinator
I know I gave you the information to answer any concerns you might have. Sincerely, Ken [This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-11-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Kendemyer, you fraud, you clearly don't understand the first thing about the second law of thermodynamics. I doubt you even understand the pseudo-argument in your link.
Please explain, in your words, why the fossil record does not provide good evidence for evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2302 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
Copied from
Is macroevolution a religion? Should we rename it evolutiontarianism? A time honored tradition picked up from Ken, copying posts verbatim. Ken,I know this is the FFA and is essentially unmoderated, but I am going to step in anyway. If you truly want to make some kind of point on this forum I suggest that you actually attempt to discuss something. Battle of the Links is NOT an effective debating tool. I am also going to suggest that your opponents in these pseudo-debates ask their simple, easily answered questions one more time and then ignore you until you answer. You have no need of their help in looking foolish for your cause, as even some of your fellow Christians and creationists have told you. I will not suspend you, as I think you are the perfect poster boy for poor logic and ineffectual debating skills. Rock On
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Oops!
You posted a link. I do not want a link. I want a simple answer to a simple question. Your reply should be ONE WORD. Choose from YES or NO. Ken, do you agree that the Earth is NOT a closed system, but is receiving lots of energy from the sun?Yes or No? Do not post another website. Do not argue related or unrelated topics. Do not preach a sermon to me. DO NOT CONTINUE TO TRY TO WEASEL OUT OF ANSWERING A SIMPLE QUESTION. Yes or no? Pick one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kendemyer Inactive Member |
TO: ASGARA
As far as my debating skills, I will let others judge my debating skills. I will ask this question though, "Since when has excellent debating skills been necessary to win a creation/evolution debate?" God's creation testifies to Him. The Scriptures rightfully proclaim, "The heavens declare the glory of God..." - Psalms 19:1. All and any eloquence that the evolutionists have at their disposal will not change the fact that Genesis and creationism are true. The creationist bus in people to see the creation/evolution debates as the Wall Street Journal has stated. We know we very much tend to win the debates. It is true that the evolutionists complain that the creationist pick on the things they propose and they do not have enough time to respond during the debate. That is very true. But this begs the question, "Why can't the evolutionists do the same and pick on creationism?". After all is said and done, the macroevolution hypothesis truly is a hypothesis in crises. Sincerely, Ken [This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-07-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
But this begs the question, "Why can't the evolutionists do the same and pick on creationism?".
Because creationism is so empty there is nothing to pick on.
After all is said and done, the macroevolution hypothesis truly is a hypothesis in crises.
Really? With all the evidence that supports it? Again, why is the fossil record not good evidence in favor of evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
As far as my debating skills, I will let others judge my debating skills OK. You have none. You know nothing of the subjects of these threads, and you are totally incapable of writing a coherent paragraph or a logical exposition of your beleifs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Kendemyer, please explain your understanding as to why the fossil record is not good evidence for the evolution of species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MisterOpus1 Inactive Member |
quote: OK, you stink.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
captainron Inactive Member |
As far as my debating skills, I will let others judge my debating skills misteropus1 writes: OK, you stink. i concur,as a layman on these subjects even i should be able to understand Ken's case, if it were structured right. I am more confused than when i started reading these threads.... We're not all there, that's why we're here... Anon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kendemyer Inactive Member |
To: Captainron
I would suggest looking at the main creationist:
Answers in Genesis
The Institute for Creation Research | The Institute for Creation Research www.creationism.org http://www.trueorigins.org I would also recommend these links: Articles regarding mutations and why they are not a good argument for the macroevolutionary hypothesis: : Page not found – Evolution-Facts http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut13.htm Page not found – How Does a Cryptocurrency ETF Work? TO: Chiroptera I believe there are at least 250,000 species in the fossil record and over 100 million fossils in Natural Museums. I also know that compared to the total amount of fossils and species currently discovered there is a handful of controversial "missing links." In short, I think the fossil record shows creationism. To: All I suspect my involvement at Evc Forum will be less in the future. If anyone creationist to provide additional input to the string in order to maintain a dialogue on a more frequent basis in this string it certainly would not be discouraged. Sincerely, Ken
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi Ken,
Just a quick word to say welcome back and I hope you are well. I hope we can have many productive discussions in the future. Good to see you again. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
ken writes: In regards to the second law of thermodynamics and the earth being an open system:http://www.revelationwebsite.co.uk/index1/menton/om5.htm Sincerely, Ken Your link says that the earth is an open system. Do you agree? And where in the 2nd law of thermodynamics is there any mention of a requirement for "(an) existing machine that is at least as complex as that which it produces"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kendemyer Inactive Member |
Dear Brian:
Thank you for the welcome back and I would enjoy some productive conversations as well. I do think, however, that soon my busy season will start as far as work and so my time at EVC Forum will be more limited. Plus tax time and self employment is never fun. Sincerely, Ken
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kendemyer Inactive Member |
To: WI
I see teleonomy harnessing the sun's energy (see SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution? - ChristianAnswers.Net) . I also see the abiogenesis hypothesis as being unworkable and I gave supporting evidence. In short, I see the earth being an open system argument as a way to eliminate the second law of thermodynamics objection to the macroevolutionary hypothesis as being a very forced extrapolation. Lastly, I do not see our dialogue as leading anywhere at this moment in time. I think at sometimes it is just best to discontinue discourse. Sincerely, Ken [This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-10-2004]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024