abelcainsbrother wrote:The thing that I consistantly notice about Audie is how she can believe life evolves without one scientist ever demonstrating it,she never saw it happpen,cannot see it happen,yet cannot believe things in the bible she didn't see. She will ignore that not being able to breed amongst a population sometimes is normal and it never leads to life evolving.
Like amongst the population of dogs a Great Dane and Chihauhauh cannot breed, yet it is not a new species that has not branched off like evolutionists believe and this proves their whole tree of life cannot be true and is based on belief and imagination.Yet it is somehow speciation for evolutionists and scientists decide for you when speciation happens. Or like Lions that can breed with Tigers,but not Cheetahs and yet it is not above its species level or like evolutionists using salamanders for evidence for macro-evolution and claim when Salamanders produced more salamanders that cannot breed,it is somehow speciation this time though and they will evolve. You've just got to believe it,bro.
The thing is is it does not matter that a Great Dane and Chihauhauh cannot breed ,Tigers and Cheetahs cant breed and that one kind of a salamanders cannot breed with another kind of salamander. Kinds/Families produce after their kind just like the bible teaches us. Because they will still never be above the species level.She chooses to believe what man says is true without evidence but not what God says is true because she claims there is no evidence.
There is a double standard when it comes to evidence and yet knows man has been wrong many times throughout history. Whole societies believed things to be true that turned out to be wrong and it was not just Christians,but everybody else too. So you cannot just single out Christianity that blessed the world with modern science. It did not come from atheists,they remaimed in the dark.Yet God made salvation so easy but she will not do things God's way and so does not have the proof she needs. Overlook the lack of evidence for evolution,yet nit-pick God's word for lack of evidence.
Abe, you keep chanting your mantra about "no evidence" despite the fact that there is more evidence than you could read in a lifetime.
Of course there is no evidence, to you. What little you read, you dont understand. Your salamander thing you keep citing, your take-away isnt at all what the article is about. You have very little grasp of geology or biology, and you invent your own standards for what is evidence, which are impossible to meet.
When evidence goes against you, then you go into high gear, making things up.
Darting about for an escape like a mouse in a cobra cage.
Escape attempt number 1:
"The ice floated, stayed intact, settled back exactly in place" ;
Escape attempt numberv2
"The ice did not float, it is stuck down"
Escape attempt number 3
"The top half of the ice floated, did not break up or melt, settled back exactly in place".
You made up each of those. Your "evidence"? An ice cube frozen to a bowl!
Even you know how dumb that is.
Got any more escape attempts you want to try?
Double standard? Hardly. You've no standard at all.
Now, you speak of "God's word", "what God says is true".
I notice you ignore uncomfortable questions and just chant your same mantra.
Lets see if you can be honest and answer this time.
So tell me-
Is it possible that you are wrong about the existence of god?
I could be wrong, I dont claim to have arcane insight.
Is it possible that there was no world wide flood?
The evidence shows there was not. Only an assumed insight into the true meaning of
"God's word" says otherwise. No data, nothing but that assumption.
The numbers are against "God's word" as you choose to interpret it.
Is it possible that "God's word" is true, but like the atheists you say ard in darkness, you dont have a clue what "God"is actually saying?