Creationist child abusers close doors

PostmodernProphet said:
well, I have certainly "altered" what you clearly intend....which is to make the scriptures appear to be gibberish.....fortunately one is not required to accept your intentions to accept the scriptures......
Click to expand...

No, it's your intent to make it gibberish. According to you God has violated his covenant with allowing local floods. You have also made a mess of the gospel of Christ. Maybe you should try reading the Bible or take on online course on it.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no....you have told me that man's most distant ancestor is bioslime.....you have not told me what bioslime evolved into which is part of the path to man......you have simply stated that it is absurd to think mold is on that pathway.......apparently you believe fossils prove this......I am still waiting for the promised scientific evidence......
Click to expand...

Strawman.

You have claimed the most common theory of evolution excludes common descent and that I introduced that but you can't offer any source/examples for this alternate theory. Where is this theory that disagrees with what I have said? One example?
 
Professor Baxter said:
Yeah I told you you need to be more specific. I have no clue what you mean by bioslime. But this WAS all laid out in the descent of man thread.
Click to expand...

lol......why are you afraid to answer a simple question?.....you've claimed there is scientific evidence supporting the evolution of mankind from its first ancestor.....and yet not only can you not provide the evidence, you can't even name the second stage of evolution......
 
Professor Baxter said:
Strawman.

You have claimed the most common theory of evolution excludes common descent and that I introduced that but you can't offer any source/examples for this alternate theory. Where is this theory that disagrees with what I have said? One example?
Click to expand...

odd....nothing in that post looks anything like the scientific evidence requested in the post you quoted.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
concession of what?.....I've never claimed anything different......
Click to expand...

You most certainly have claimed that the Bible including the story of Noah explains world history and has an impact on the descent of life. But your argument has been defeated and now you are retreating to some other gibberish.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol......why are you afraid to answer a simple question?.....you've claimed there is scientific evidence supporting the evolution of mankind from its first ancestor.....and yet not only can you not provide the evidence, you can't even name the second stage of evolution......
Click to expand...

Why are you afraid to be more specific or answer ANY questions? It's been named several times.

Prokaryotes then eukaryotes.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
obviously not....that would be according to you.....I have not made such a claim and have actually denied it......
Click to expand...

According to you, he broke his covenant. The covenant said he would never cover the earth with water again. You claim that earth was just figurative and reaaly meant a local area. There have been local floods.

Then there is the problem you cause in the gospels of Christ.

Try reading the Bible. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about
 
Professor Baxter said:
You most certainly have claimed that the Bible including the story of Noah explains world history and has an impact on the descent of life. But your argument has been defeated and now you are retreating to some other gibberish.
Click to expand...

???....I don't recognize a single syllable of that.....considering I don't even believe in common descent it would be illogical for me to say anything had an "impact" on it......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
odd....nothing in that post looks anything like the scientific evidence requested in the post you quoted.....
Click to expand...

Odd nowhere in this thread have you once backed up your claim that my claims differ from the standard theory. You made some vague point about common descent but you can't any science done that excludes or counters that premise. You don't accept evolution. You cherry pick and lie about what you reject, just like you do with the Bible.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Why are you afraid to be more specific or answer ANY questions? It's been named several times.

Prokaryotes then eukaryotes.
Click to expand...

do you have scientific evidence demonstrating the evolution of any porokaryote (which as I pointed out before, the wiki article called bioslime) into an eukaryote?........
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???....I don't recognize a single syllable of that.....considering I don't even believe in common descent it would be illogical for me to say anything had an "impact" on it......
Click to expand...

I did not say common descent. I said descent. You remember your nonsense about cat kind, don't you?
 
Professor Baxter said:
Odd nowhere in this thread have you once backed up your claim that my claims differ from the standard theory. You made some vague point about common descent but you can't any science done that excludes or counters that premise. You don't accept evolution. You cherry pick and lie about what you reject, just like you do with the Bible.
Click to expand...

/sigh.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top