Assuming there is a God, is God a perfect being? (J.Philp vs. Okmin) Commentary Thread

[Okmin]

Debate thread here.

[total relism]

god created a original perfect creation before the fall no death imperfection etc.
god can do anything that is not contradictory to itself or illogical since he operates in a logical way and cannot contradict himself.
By the way what makes this world follow logical laws? if not created by god a logical creator? what makes matter follow laws of noncontridiction? why are there laws of logic?
The reason things went wrong is because god gave us free will and we chose to sin witch causes separation from god so know things fall apart decay death etc.
Love has to give free will to chose, he could have made us perfect doing always good but god wants us to chose to follow him and chose to love him without free will no true love

[MathiasOfAthens]

so sorry thought it was commentary thread

Then why did you post here cause it doesnt say edited by total relism so this was your first post.


If God is omnipotent, he can create the stone. If He creates the stone and He cannot lift it, then he isn't omnipotent because there is something he can't do. If He can't create a stone he cannot lift, He is not omnipotent because He cannot create it.

That pretty much does it. I like this quote or rephrasing of who was it Voitaire?

My wife believes god is someone who watches but does not act... sorta like a deist. While I am an Atheist I dont see nothing wrong with someone believing in a higher power that does not concern itself with human affairs.

[Okmin]

There's a 30 second-ish grace period where you can edit it without it saying you edited it. I've done it a few times

Quote's from Averroës, Middle Eastern philosopher.

[MathiasOfAthens]

my apologies... I am an idiot sorry total relism.

[total relism]

The word "omnipotent" is never used in the Bible, but has been inferred primarily by one of God's Hebrew titles, "Shadday," which is most often translated "almighty." However, the Bible never claims that God can do all things. In fact, the Bible makes a point that there are things that God cannot do. The Bible says that God cannot commit sin. God cannot lie. Therefore, biblical omnipotence does not mean that God can do all things. God cannot do anything that is contrary to His holy character. However, God can do anything that He determines to do. This is a true meaning of omnipotence

Some of the arguments against omnipotence are plain silly and stupid. Can God create a spherical triangle? Saying that omnipotence requires the ability to do logically impossible things is stupid. God cannot turn truth into a lie.

Can God create a rock He cannot lift? Since an all-powerful being will always be able to accomplish whatever He sets out to do, it is impossible for an all-powerful being to fail. The above atheistic argument is arguing that since God is all-powerful He can do anything - even fail. This is like saying that since God is all-powerful He can be not all-powerful. Obviously, this is absurd. An all-powerful being cannot fail. Therefore, God can create a rock of tremendous size, but, since He is all-powerful, He will always be able to lift it. The ability to fail is not a part of omnipotence. The Bible makes it clear that God is able to do anything He wants to, and that nothing He wants to do is too difficult for Him to accomplish. This is the true meaning of omnipotence.

The atheist distorts the biblical definition of omnipotence in order to "prove" that God cannot exist. Contrary to their claims, omnipotence does not include the ability to do things that are, by definition, impossible. Neither does omnipotence include the ability to fail. By defining omnipotence as requiring one to have the ability to fail, atheists have defined omnipotence as being impossible. Of course, an omnipotent God would never fail.

yes its a copy paste but same thing as i said

[MathiasOfAthens]

The word "omnipotent" is never used in the Bible, but has been inferred primarily by one of God's Hebrew titles, "Shadday," which is most often translated "almighty." However, the Bible never claims that God can do all things. In fact, the Bible makes a point that there are things that God cannot do. The Bible says that God cannot commit sin. God cannot lie. Therefore, biblical omnipotence does not mean that God can do all things. God cannot do anything that is contrary to His holy character. However, God can do anything that He determines to do. This is a true meaning of omnipotence

If God cannot lie or commit sin then he is not Omnipotent or all powerful and can prob not do all that he pleases. So we are in agreement God is not All Powerful. So why call him God?

What about Omniscience: Does God know everything yet failed to relay that information accurately to those who wrote the Bible.

Epicurus:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?

Some of the arguments against omnipotence are plain silly and stupid. Can God create a spherical triangle? Saying that omnipotence requires the ability to do logically impossible things is stupid. God cannot turn truth into a lie.

A Spherical Triangle is Impossible. God can not do the physically impossible and I know you are well aware of that. But Spherical Triangle is not like its hard to do like lying or jumping a clift but physically impossible to do. Its a contradiction. A sphere does not necessarily have sides and a Triangle has 3 sides... impossible. So why use such an example? No one has ever said God can make a spherical Triangle. Your the one who claims God can make a planet in 6 days despite fossils that are much older than your 6000 years.

The atheist distorts the biblical definition of omnipotence in order to "prove" that God cannot exist. Contrary to their claims, omnipotence does not include the ability to do things that are, by definition, impossible. Neither does omnipotence include the ability to fail. By defining omnipotence as requiring one to have the ability to fail, atheists have defined omnipotence as being impossible. Of course, an omnipotent God would never fail.

yes its a copy paste but same thing as i said

No one has claimed god can do the impossible like make a spherical triangle you are the one claiming he can do the impossible by talking as a burning bush to some old man on top of a mountain or make the whole earth flood which is physically impossible due to the lack of water to cover the whole planet and you even claim God can intervene 1000s of years ago yet chooses not to today... which makes god malevolent and not Omnipolent.

I dont even understand most of what you just said.... ability to fail??? What you mean of course an omnipolent god would never fail?

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

I don't think I'll last long taking a stance which is utterly ridiculous.

[total relism]

The word "omnipotent" is never used in the Bible, but has been inferred primarily by one of God's Hebrew titles, "Shadday," which is most often translated "almighty." However, the Bible never claims that God can do all things. In fact, the Bible makes a point that there are things that God cannot do. The Bible says that God cannot commit sin. God cannot lie. Therefore, biblical omnipotence does not mean that God can do all things. God cannot do anything that is contrary to His holy character. However, God can do anything that He determines to do. This is a true meaning of omnipotence

Some of the arguments against omnipotence are plain silly and stupid. Can God create a spherical triangle? Saying that omnipotence requires the ability to do logically impossible things is stupid. God cannot turn truth into a lie.

Can God create a rock He cannot lift? Since an all-powerful being will always be able to accomplish whatever He sets out to do, it is impossible for an all-powerful being to fail. The above atheistic argument is arguing that since God is all-powerful He can do anything - even fail. This is like saying that since God is all-powerful He can be not all-powerful. Obviously, this is absurd. An all-powerful being cannot fail. Therefore, God can create a rock of tremendous size, but, since He is all-powerful, He will always be able to lift it. The ability to fail is not a part of omnipotence. The Bible makes it clear that God is able to do anything He wants to, and that nothing He wants to do is too difficult for Him to accomplish. This is the true meaning of omnipotence.

The atheist distorts the biblical definition of omnipotence in order to "prove" that God cannot exist. Contrary to their claims, omnipotence does not include the ability to do things that are, by definition, impossible. Neither does omnipotence include the ability to fail. By defining omnipotence as requiring one to have the ability to fail, atheists have defined omnipotence as being impossible. Of course, an omnipotent God would never fail.

yes its a copy paste but same thing as i said

If God cannot lie or commit sin then he is not Omnipotent or all powerful and can prob not do all that he pleases. So we are in agreement God is not All Powerful. So why call him God?

he never claims to be able to do everything he cannot lie etc but yes he can do all he please he just does not chose to lie. as my other post said he can do all that he wills to do. He is all powerful in his own nature, let me ask why call a god that can sin and lie god?
you should really spend more time and thought into replies before posting.

What about Omniscience: Does God know everything yet failed to relay that information accurately to those who wrote the Bible.

does this not assume that he did not accurately transmit the info? this is not what the bible says im not sure what your saying here.
My guess is you will say today's bibles are not accurately translated, christians belive the orginal copies were perfect, if you want to debate the translation of the bible i would do that with you down the line. I have like 10 creation vs evolutions to do first
There is alot of info out there for you to read up on about this subject the bible has more support than any other book in history for its accuracy[todays bibles].

Epicurus:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?

this is someones quote tag i already replied to long ago.
This is a wrong question to ask in haven and when god restores the earth and he is in total control there will be no violence death etc so when god is in control yes no pain etc
you have missed again the whole free will part god created earth for us we are in control free will. God has to give free will love has to let us chose





that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of corruption into the glorious freedom of God's children.
22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together with labor pains until now.
Romans 8 21-22




Our Father in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come.
Your will be done
On earth as it is in heaven.
Matt chapter 6 9-10



this is why we say your will be done on earth as it is in heaven





it is no longer gods creation it was given to man, psalm 8.6 gen 1 26-28 jesus calls the devil the prince and ruler of this world.
John 18 36 jesus says I am not of this world
matt 4 8-9 god is not the ruler of this world.





Death is the last enemy to be destroyed
Corinthians 15.26
.




1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John,[a] saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”
5 Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.”
Revelations chapter 21 1-5




The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling[a] together;
and a little child will lead them.
7 The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.
9 They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the LORD
Isiah 11 6-9


The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
and dust will be the serpent’s food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,”
says the LORD.
Isiah 65.25


4 He will settle disputes among the nations
and provide arbitration for many peoples.
They will turn their swords into plows
and their spears into pruning knives.
Nations will not take up the sword against [other] nations,
and they will never again train for war.
Isaiah 2 1-4

A Spherical Triangle is Impossible. God can not do the physically impossible and I know you are well aware of that. But Spherical Triangle is not like its hard to do like lying or jumping a clift but physically impossible to do. Its a contradiction. A sphere does not necessarily have sides and a Triangle has 3 sides... impossible. So why use such an example? No one has ever said God can make a spherical Triangle. Your the one who claims God can make a planet in 6 days despite fossils that are much older than your 6000 years.

you dont see how this is like your own argument than?
Your claim that there are fossils older than 6,000 shows me you probably dont even know how they date fossils. I would love a debate with you on age of earth will you accept? thogh my guess is your evidence will be look see this article it claims these fossils are millions of years old so your wrong.
Whitch is the same thing you claim creationist of doing with the bible, you will just qoute your high priest without even understanding how the methods work.
I could be wrong but either way i would love to.
Since we are on the subject your last post on creation evolution i would honestly be embarrassed do you even read before you reply?

A Mule
A Liger

And 10 other Amazing Animal Hybrids.

The OP is assuming that because animals routinely each other they must have been created by God because only god would tell animals that look alike and have parents that look alike to other animals that look alike.

you purposely leave out what i say
no new organs no new genes Enzymes no new information will ever evolve that was not already present in the animals genome.

the breeding between lions and tigers show they are from the original created kind. Nothing new was magically created when they breeded as evoltuinist need.

How can a theory predict there is will be evidence for it? And how can there be 100s of young universes? This makes no sense.

still amazed at how you came up with this hundreds of people have seen my post your the only one that came to this conclusion
I was saying there are hundreds of evidences for a young earth universe etc. let me say it another way hundreds of reasons the earth cannot be billions of years old.


here is what you quoted
Creation predicts there would be evidence of a young universe there are hundreds, also that there would be flaws with any and all indicators that are said to prove a old earth

Thats not a prediction. Your young earth claims earth is young like around 6000 years old. The bottleneck recorded in our DnA dates back nearly 70,000 years. At the very least then our earth is 70,000 years old. But then we have fossils from other animals and from rocks that make earth much older.


Also amazing how his sources are videos that you have to purchase. And I dont think he even explained how the y chromosome was predicted by the Bible, he just dropped the link.

claiming that there would be evidence for a young earth is not a prediction by a young earth creation model?
when you claim molecular clock can be used to date 70.000 years ago shows me you have no idea what you are talking about just repeating what you high preist tell you to.[dont dare question them just believe] in fact the botelneck you are refering to
depends what part of genome is tested how its calibrated etc for human mitochondrial eve could date anywhere from 65 years to 160,000
Simon Y W ho and greger larson “molecular clock s when times are -a-changing trends in genticks 22 [2006] 79-83



you would already know that if you read my responses to tank but i would not aspect you to read before replying.



Than again the fossil and rock claim you assure us is older than 6,000 years without knowing how they date. ill again offer you a 1v1 debate on the age of the earth

you than claim you have to buy my refrance while copy and pasting the free online article you said does not exist. nucleic eic acids res 35 [9] 3039-3045 2007
how you did not see it im not sure,oh wait you dont read before replying.

No one has claimed god can do the impossible like make a spherical triangle you are the one claiming he can do the impossible by talking as a burning bush to some old man on top of a mountain or make the whole earth flood which is physically impossible due to the lack of water to cover the whole planet and you even claim God can intervene 1000s of years ago yet chooses not to today... which makes god malevolent and not Omnipolent.

or a rock to big for him to carry? again if it is in his will he can do it, god appered as a burning bush he can do that raise from the dead he can do that, if it is in his will he can do it.
Mathis will you debate me creation vs evolution or global flood? you make so many claims without backing any up i would really enjoy it. You must be unaware there is enough water in the oceans to flood the continents miles deep yes? All you need is flatter contints just like the bible says there were before the flood it says the moutains rose and valleys sank during the flood creating a place for water to drain of into the oceans.
Were did the water come from? and many other questions,well you'll just have to debate me than[this is not the places its not our post].
Why do you believe god does not intervene today? according to the bible he upholds everything he will intervene in future hes waiting for all to come to repentance[who will].



"The Lord is not willing that any should perish but that all should reach repentance" (2Pet. 3.9).



"He desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1Tim. 2.4).

I dont even understand most of what you just said.... ability to fail??? What you mean of course an omnipolent god would never fail?

yes, at what he wants to accomplish

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

the breeding between lions and tigers show they are from the original created kind. Nothing new was magically created when they breeded as evoltuinist need.

Several thousand years of animal husbandry disagrees with you. I don't appreciate you're calling of evolution as magical creation when you don't provide any evidence for creationism other that massive quote bombs, often taken out of context and from the elusive, unnamed "great famous evolutionists or biologists". Evolution may just be a theory, but so is Pythagoras' theorem.
Now if your god were oh so infinitely loving and perfect, then why the hell did he create me with atheistic tendencies, to eventually send me off to burn for an eternity. You may not understand it, but I don't have a choice whether or not I believe in a god, I can't just say "hey, I feel like accepting something that I've never seen or heard before", then bam presto I'm a Christian. An all loving god would either reward good deeds (rather than beliefs), or create everyone with Christian tendancies.

[MathiasOfAthens]

We can date rocks and fossils with Uranium-uranium and uranium-lead Relism. Carbon dating is only reliable up until 62,000 years ago... Uraniun-lead is reliable between 1 million and 4.5 billions years ago. You can google it and check it for yourself.

You said I dont know how we date objects like 30 times in your post? I just told you above I do know... and you will then call me a liar? I would ask you why but that would be pointless...

Everytime someone is born new genes are created. Your expecting a monkey to appear from a mating between a cow and a whale which is just as impossible as a spherical triangle. Like it or not but new genes are created everytime new cat or dog races are bred.

[total relism]

We can date rocks and fossils with Uranium-uranium and uranium-lead Relism. Carbon dating is only reliable up until 62,000 years ago... Uraniun-lead is reliable between 1 million and 4.5 billions years ago. You can google it and check it for yourself.

You said I dont know how we date objects like 30 times in your post? I just told you above I do know... and you will then call me a liar? I would ask you why but that would be pointless...

Everytime someone is born new genes are created. Your expecting a monkey to appear from a mating between a cow and a whale which is just as impossible as a spherical triangle. Like it or not but new genes are created everytime new cat or dog races are bred.

please debate me,im glad you have herd of radiometric dating but you still don't know how or you would not claim the same, you dont understand the assumptions[ i will love to show you if you debate me age of earth].
Its just if you really understand how they date fossils i said, whitch you still dont because you think they use radiometric dating.
You say new genes are created every time someone is born, not sure of you noticed but they were kinda passed on by previous owners.
No new information new novel genes in the biosphere please debate me if you think otherwise.
Im not especting a monkey from a cow how about 1 protein one enzyme one gene?
We have done millions of years of mutations in labs increased by 15,000% were is this evidence for evolution?

[total relism]

Several thousand years of animal husbandry disagrees with you. I don't appreciate you're calling of evolution as magical creation when you don't provide any evidence for creationism other that massive quote bombs, often taken out of context and from the elusive, unnamed "great famous evolutionists or biologists".

not sure if you read my replies but i showed non were taken out of context at all. Your claim at animal bredding proves evolution shows your total lack of understanding of the creation model.
Are you on my debate list? if so ill bump you up to next after tank.
Yes evolution needs a whole lot of magic as ill show if you debate me.
You say i present no evidence for creation try reading my post this time, but you will see if you debate me,seriously ill bump you up right after tank.

Evolution may just be a theory, but so is Pythagoras' theorem.

laws like gravity are tested observed and demonstrated real SCIENCE, EVOLUTION IS BARLEY A HYPOTHESIS never observed. debate me if you think other wise.

Now if your god were oh so infinitely loving and perfect, then why the hell did he create me with atheistic tendencies, to eventually send me off to burn for an eternity. You may not understand it, but I don't have a choice whether or not I believe in a god, I can't just say "hey, I feel like accepting something that I've never seen or heard before", then bam presto I'm a Christian. An all loving god would either reward good deeds (rather than beliefs), or create everyone with Christian tendancies.

it seems weird to me the position you took for this debate when you obviously had no intention of defending your side that you ar know attacking
You have your own atheistic tendencies don't blame your free will on god well yeah never mind you can.
god sends noone to hell you chose a life without him you have right to chose,what kind of god would make you spend eternity with him when you have been trying to get away your whole life?
"The Lord is not willing that any should perish but that all should reach repentance" (2Pet. 3.9).



"He desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1Tim. 2.4).


Wouldn’t it be horribly unfair for God to condemn people who hate Him to an eternity in His presence, whether they like it or not? Heaven wouldn’t be pleasant for those who hate God, because Heaven is the place where we will fully experience God’s presence. Those who love God look forward to Heaven with longing, but Heaven would be nearly as bad as Hell for the unbeliever, because the unregenerate heart hates God.
So in a sense, Hell is God finally giving the unbeliever what he wanted all along. But the absence of God means the absence of everything good, since everything good comes from Him


you accept evolution, origin of life you believe was no created by god yet you have never seen it happen.
we all have faith you believe in the beginning hydrogen gas from some big bang i believe in the beginning god.
How do you determine good and bad? what is good what is bad in your mind? after all were just chemicals getting together after millions of years of mutations for a survival advantage. would you get mad at backing powder and vinegar reacting?
how do you tell whats right and wrong? and how can you go tell other chemicals[people] what is right and wrong?

Some people do not know God's law when they sin. They will not be judged by the law when they die. Others do know God's law when they sin. They will be judged by the law.
13 For the hearers of the law (V) are not righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.
14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men
Romans 2 13-16




“Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them,[a] says the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
Jeremiah 31 31-34

[MathiasOfAthens]

FFS relism quit quote dropping I wont respond to anything you post if you keep ing quote dropping. Keep your posts short and to the ing point.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

I would also like to see total relism's posts shrink a little and stop juxtaposing different text sizes.

not sure if you read my replies but i showed non were taken out of context at all. Your claim at animal bredding proves evolution shows your total lack of understanding of the creation model.
Are you on my debate list? if so ill bump you up to next after tank.
Yes evolution needs a whole lot of magic as ill show if you debate me.
You say i present no evidence for creation try reading my post this time, but you will see if you debate me,seriously ill bump you up right after tank.

Perhaps I missed a slight bit because of the ridiculous size of your posts.

[total relism]

FFS relism quit quote dropping I wont respond to anything you post if you keep ing quote dropping. Keep your posts short and to the ing point.

you challenge the bible and attack it than say i cant quote what the bible has to say on what your attacking it for?

[total relism]

I would also like to see total relism's posts shrink a little and stop juxtaposing different text sizes.



Perhaps I missed a slight bit because of the ridiculous size of your posts.

than you should withhold from claims about them, are you on my debate list? if so when do you think you can start? im still waiting for tanks reply its been a few days know so ill see when i have time with him maybe probably next week if you can.

[MathiasOfAthens]

please debate me,im glad you have herd of radiometric dating but you still don't know how or you would not claim the same, you dont understand the assumptions[ i will love to show you if you debate me age of earth].

I heard how they date objects from High School, but I am not going to debate you 1v1 because your debates are all the same. You quote drop and write century long posts. When you can keep your posts concise and to the point I will debate. And the Bible is not evidence for anything except a mythological story. ANYTHING in the world to be taken as credible must be backed up by other sources and reports. So the age of something is found from multiple techniques. Multiple dating methods.

Its just if you really understand how they date fossils i said, whitch you still dont because you think they use radiometric dating.

Um radiometric or radioactive is the technique or category of hundreds of methods that can be used. When you date something old it is called RADIOMETRIC dating.

The best known techniques or methods to date something are radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating. Scientists and archeologist use these and others on objects to find their date... Plus they use primary sources as well like writings. Reports filed by the CIA are compiled by MULTIPLE sources, not just ONE. EVERYTHING you believe comes from ONE source, the Bible.

You say new genes are created every time someone is born, not sure of you noticed but they were kinda passed on by previous owners.

Obviously you didnt notice that the same thing happens when two species mate... its called breeding... So now you admit new genes are created.

These are both dogs but they believe to different genetic clusters. They have been bred with other breeds and re-bred with others. Thats how new species emerge. So if we keep breeding ligers and then re-breed them with another cat like Jaguar or a Puma your get something different from a Liger, a Tiger or Lion.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

No new information new novel genes in the biosphere please debate me if you think otherwise.

Articles on how new genes are created:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0506172731.htm
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topic...seudogenes-835
http://www.avhandlingar.se/avhandling/2cee7a12c0/
http://www.ekol.lu.se/o.o.i.s?id=12588&postid=328266
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14634634
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...hout-new-genes

The last link is about how a new type of cell called the pluripotent was created from a virus. Thats NEW genes right there.

Im not especting a monkey from a cow how about 1 protein one enzyme one gene?

Look above.

We have done millions of years of mutations in labs increased by 15,000% were is this evidence for evolution?

That doesnt make any sense whatsoever, Im sorry can you rephrase this?

[total relism]

I heard how they date objects from High School, but I am not going to debate you 1v1 because your debates are all the same. You quote drop and write century long posts. When you can keep your posts concise and to the point I will debate. And the Bible is not evidence for anything except a mythological story. ANYTHING in the world to be taken as credible must be backed up by other sources and reports. So the age of something is found from multiple techniques. Multiple dating methods.

first please stop this on this thread this is off subject please accept a debate or stop here at least and pm me

in a age of the earth debate the post will not be to long at all only first post, i promise to keep to the point as much as i can. people here seem to think nobody needs to back up there claims i find that so weird.
I qouted the bible when you attack what it said so i showed what it had to say on the subject, also what evidence do you have the bible is a mythological story? how do you explain the archology evidence for it? the historical evidence for it? if it is myth.
You than say things need to be backed i agree 100% up while you almost never back up your claims
in fact you just did it by saying the bible is a mythological story.
You still have not answered my first statement about you not really understanding how it works or how they date fossils, so that is another claim not backed up.

Um radiometric or radioactive is the technique or category of hundreds of methods that can be used. When you date something old it is called RADIOMETRIC dating.

classic when you date something old its called radiometric dating
Again as i said you do not even understand, and if you mean hundreds of difrent radiometric dating methods i believe theres only 40 or so.

The best known techniques or methods to date something are radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating. Scientists and archeologist use these and others on objects to find their date... Plus they use primary sources as well like writings. Reports filed by the CIA are compiled by MULTIPLE sources, not just ONE. EVERYTHING you believe comes from ONE source, the Bible.

please dont try know to tell me about radiometric dating. after all radiometric dating is acording to you [when you date something old] lol
you tahn make another claim without backing it up?[that my only source is the bible] but mathias you said things need to be backed up Right?
This claim is not backed up you lie, also why would you not want to debate me age of earth,you could give all these great radiometric dating evidence [i mean old things] that you know so very much about and ill just qoute the bible.

Obviously you didnt notice that the same thing happens when two species mate... its called breeding... So now you admit new genes are created.

tell me when new genes have been created through breeding, this shows your lack of knowledge here as well.
bredding is just a Recombination of existing genes, no new genetic infomration is added.

These are both dogs but they believe to different genetic clusters. They have been bred with other breeds and re-bred with others. Thats how new species emerge. So if we keep breeding ligers and then re-breed them with another cat like Jaguar or a Puma your get something different from a Liger, a Tiger or Lion.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

well thats fantastic if you even read any of my replies or links in the last 100 or so pages ive debated on this forum you may have noticed this is no evidence for evolution at all.
nothing new is created here or magically evolved new genes as evolution needs, new species arive sure but by loss of information please read any of my post or original post links. oh crap thats right you dont read replies damn.

Articles on how new genes are created:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0506172731.htm
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topic...seudogenes-835
http://www.avhandlingar.se/avhandling/2cee7a12c0/
http://www.ekol.lu.se/o.o.i.s?id=12588&postid=328266
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14634634
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...hout-new-genes

The last link is about how a new type of cell called the pluripotent was created from a virus. Thats NEW genes right there.


Look above.

im assuming you googled these and probably dont even understand could be wrong? normally i would love to respond to them all this is not the correct thread a debate would fit nicely seing how you have done this at least twice before on my original debate than i go find and show how non are evidence for evolution and you google 5 more etc.
so i will gladly answer your number one evidence out of these here pick your very best and ill respond.

That doesnt make any sense whatsoever, Im sorry can you rephrase this?

we have tested bacteria fruit fly s in labs and mutated them every way possible and increased the mutation rate by 15.000% never have we evolved anything new no new information.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

than you should withhold from claims about them, are you on my debate list? if so when do you think you can start? im still waiting for tanks reply its been a few days know so ill see when i have time with him maybe probably next week if you can.

Yes, I am on your list, you sent me a PM. I can start sometime this week but I'm unavailable next week.