Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not only Intelligent Design - but DIVINE DESIGN!
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 106 of 139 (561400)
05-20-2010 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Anita Meyer
05-20-2010 10:35 AM


Anita Meyer writes:
All very good rebuttals, but you know what, they are all typical of one sided evolutionists thinking of always finding lame excuses and never truly coming head on with subjective data!
Why would we want to provide subjective data? Objesctive data is so much more reliable.
All your data does is serve you from the painful job of thinking rationally.
Oh please, we're not creationists, you know.
I refuse to go spiraling down that path. Again, nothing anything that any of you have said here has disclaimed anything that I have said.
You have been completely and totaly refuted.
There is not one thing that any of you guys here said, that I didn’t already hear many times before.
And you didn;t learn anyrthing from those previous experiences, it seems. A shame really.
You claim that I get my info from creationists websites (which is not the case), but you guys are guilty of not thinking outside the box. You remain trapped in professor evil-lutionist class 101!
So, because we follow the evidence, we're trapped in a box, yet you, who needs to interpret everything in light of your religious view is "thinking outside the box"? What a weird position to hold.
Now we can keep going around and around with this argument on both Creationists verses Evolutionists scientific data, but it remains a vicious circle both ways that only serves to meaningless ends.
Creationists have no scientific data.
I’ve decided to take a different route with dealing with you people here. I am going to post things that have no other logical explanation but to suggesting that all your postulations that you have learned in science need serious questioning.
Oh goody.
Question 1, can anyone here tell me why it is that when a poisonous snake is placed in a hyperbaric chamber that its venom becomes nontoxic?
Source for this claim?
I will give you the answer What you guys need to do is start examining the Bible for answers. What is so spectacular about the Bible is that literally every answer one is looking for can be found in the Bible and backed-up by both history, archeology and all the sciences.
Then I'd like you to find the answer to the question "What is 7 times bigger than me?" in the bible.
For example people think that the curse caused by Adam and Eve disobeying was just a mythical story. People cant seem to phantom how two people can live so long or subsequently many of the ancient patriarchs mentioned in the Bible.
Fictional people will live as long as the author wants them to, there's nothing hard to fathom about that. Or do you have evidence that they lived that long? Heck, do you have evidence they existed at all?
Science does not realize that there are numerous telltale signs that the earth readily supplies. We find these little secrets trapped inside the fossil record. For instance (as I was saying in a previous posting in this thread) we know that living things (ones that still exists today) grew much bigger because we find giant specimens in the fossil record. The obvious reason for this is because there was more oxygen in the earlier atmosphere than there is today. In Genesis it tells us that the earth had a different atmosphere during the time of Adam and Eve and before Noah’s Great Flood.
So? Does it tell the compostion of this atmosphere? Does it even allude to giant creatures, that are still around, just smaller today, at all?
This mist that came up from the face of the ground is the exact effect expected if the earth was surrounded by a vapor canopy.
If the earth was surrounded by a vapour canopy everything on the earth would've been cooked.
This atmosphere was likened unto a hyperbaric chamber. Hospitals today use hyperbaric chamber to treat certain medical ailments. Basically what a hyperbaric chamber is, is pressurized oxygen twice the normal amount. These chambers have been proven to heal open wounds and bone breakages in half the time it normally takes to heal.
So this would mean that the high oxygen content of the early Earth would have played an enormous factor pertaining to LONG LIFE!
Prove that more oxygen makes things live longer.
Did you also know that BACTERIA and CANCER CELLS cannot grow in an oxygenated rich environment. Did you also know that when a snake is placed inside a hyperbaric chamber its venom becomes nontoxic.
Source please?
Now with this aspect in mind it can then lend credence to understanding how things in the environment might have changed after Adam and Eve sinned, and subsequently after Noah’s Great Flood.
It would, if any of that actually happened, which it dind't.
What I am getting at here is that these things all have a valid scientific explanation. The word "curse" should not be looked at as being all mythical.
I await the trolls and the deniably ignorant to respond.
The trolling and the deniably ignorant one just typed a message full of nonsense that I responded to, no need to wait any longer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Anita Meyer, posted 05-20-2010 10:35 AM Anita Meyer has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 115 of 139 (561424)
05-20-2010 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Anita Meyer
05-20-2010 1:45 PM


Anita Meyer writes:
I have given up in the area with you, not because I’m wrong as you would front, but simply because I quickly realized that there is no winning with you in the different perspectives between Creationism and Evolutionism.
If that's what you would like to believe, then keep on deluding yourself.
This is what I have been saying all along. You on the other hand are fully fledged on believing that evolutionary scientist make no mistakes and that their dating methods are 100% accurate.
He uses those methods. Are you telling him he doesn't know what he is doing?
Now I’d like to move beyond this hang-up.
Of course, if you can't back it up, move away claiming victory anyway.
Why do you think that a hyperbaric chamber has that kind of effect on a poisonous snake?
Because you made that up. Or can you back this one up?
Is there a science here that we are not understanding?
No, just stuff you made up. Or other people made up and you are repeating.
Could this have played a part in the earths history in some way?
If it were true.
You know exactly what I am talking about here, so don’t revert to asinine answers.
About made up stuff. There settled it. Either back up your claims with actual evidence, or admit you made that stuff about snakes up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Anita Meyer, posted 05-20-2010 1:45 PM Anita Meyer has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 117 of 139 (561426)
05-20-2010 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Anita Meyer
05-20-2010 1:49 PM


Anita,
Nowhere in that article does it say that snake venom comes from bacteria. They compare bacterial venom to snake venom, but nowhere does it say that snake venom comes from bacteria.
Will you now finally admit you made that up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Anita Meyer, posted 05-20-2010 1:49 PM Anita Meyer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Anita Meyer, posted 05-20-2010 2:09 PM Huntard has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 125 of 139 (561438)
05-20-2010 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Anita Meyer
05-20-2010 2:30 PM


Anita Meyer writes:
Huntard, bacteria produces selective enzymes, and it is these enzymes that are tied in with snake venom.
Just look up enzymes and snake venom.
I know snake venom is made from enzymes. Those enzymes do not come from bacteria though. Which is what you were saying.
Will you admit that snake venom does not come from bacteria, or will you just keep on dodging and weaving. Or will you finally show some evidence for any assertion you made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Anita Meyer, posted 05-20-2010 2:30 PM Anita Meyer has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024