Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.
6days

6days

New member
Tyrathca said:
*At most they (Nazi's) borrowed a few (Darwinian) concepts and banned the rest to make sure no one could see how they'd distorted it. The concept of a "master race" has no place in evolution.
Click to expand...
They 'borrowed a few (Darwinian) concepts' like eugenics. The Nazi's applied Darwin's ideas about some human groups being more highly evolved. They applied Darwin's words like 'natural selection' and 'survival of the fittest' to Darwin's racist ideas of 'savage races'.*

Too bad Darwin and Hitler did not accept God's Word. All humanity are "one blood"...We are all descendants from Adam and Eve.*
 
L

Lilstu

New member
6days said:
Nice try but all of Gen. 2 is providing some details about creation. It has nothing to do with the order. Also take notice that Gen. 2:19 is past tense.*
Click to expand...

Genesis 2:4 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.
 
6days

6days

New member
Lilstu said:
Genesis 2:4 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
This is the account of the heavens and the earth*when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven
Click to expand...
Yes... that is what Gen. 2:4 says.*
 
L

Lilstu

New member
Scientists have calculated that 95% of all species that ever existed are now extinct. If God made all the animals one has to wonder why he allowed so many creatures of his creation to go extinct? It makes no sense. But if you consider Evolution, survival of the fittest, it makes sense that species that could not adapt to world changes, were replaced by new species that were more fit to survive. Stronger species replaced unfit species in various life niches on our planet.
 
6days

6days

New member
Lilstu said:
Scientists have calculated that 95% of all species that ever existed are now extinct. If God made all the animals one has to wonder why he allowed so many creatures of his creation to go extinct?*It makes no sense. But if you consider Evolution, survival of the fittest, it makes sense that species that could not adapt to world changes, were replaced by new species that were more fit to survive. Stronger species replaced unfit species in various life niches on our planet.
Click to expand...
You have it a bit backwards. The Bible explains why we have death, pain and extinctions in our world. The Biblical creation model is actually rapid adaptation and speciation. Science supports that model. Organisms can rapidly adapt using pre-existing genetic information and mechanisms. There is a thread here in TOL called 'Rapid Adaptation' for examples of how animals adapt quickly.*
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

New member
This is what's so fascinating about this subject and the fundamentalist creationists who engage in it...

6days said:
The Biblical creation model is actually rapid adaptation and speciation.
Click to expand...

Yet, 1) you can't show where rapid speciation is described in the Bible, and 2) your fellow creationist (Stripe) insists speciation never, ever happens.

Nevertheless, you keep repeating yourself as if nothing was wrong.

Organisms can rapidly adapt using pre-existing genetic information
Click to expand...

Yet you can't say what "genetic information" is or how to measure it.

Nevertheless, you keep repeating yourself as if nothing were wrong.
 
6days

6days

New member
JoseFly said:
Nevertheless, you keep repeating yourself as if nothing was wrong.
Click to expand...
Jose... remeber how many times you have repeated that before, even though answered many times.
For example... What is a 'kind'?*
Also, why not review the Rapid Adaptation thread. It might help you remember things you were already corrected on.
 
patrick jane

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Jose Fly said:
This is what's so fascinating about this subject and the fundamentalist creationists who engage in it...



Yet, 1) you can't show where rapid speciation is described in the Bible, and 2) your fellow creationist (Stripe) insists speciation never, ever happens.

Nevertheless, you keep repeating yourself as if nothing was wrong.



Yet you can't say what "genetic information" is or how to measure it.

Nevertheless, you keep repeating yourself as if nothing were wrong.
Click to expand...
McFly !? Anybody home, McFly?
 
6days

6days

New member
JoseFly said:
Yep, and you've never answered, just like you won't this time. I guarantee it.
Click to expand...
You failed on your previous money back guarantees. So, I know all about your guarantees.

In any case, lets prove you false once again.
You claimed "your fellow creationist (Stripe) insists speciation never, ever happens."[/quote]
You have been corrected on this several times by Stripe and myself. What Stripe objects to (and I agree with him) is that 'speciation' is a rubbery flexible word. Stripe said "Creationists should not use the word "species." It has numerous definitions that shift about, keeping the concept vague and malleable. The word (and all its derivatives) is next to useless in a scientific setting." *
If you care to review the 'Rapid Adaptation' thread, you will see Stripe agrees with the examples provided...He just doesn't agree with rubbery evolutionist words.

Ok... so once again, you are proved wrong on one of your guarantees. Please send the refund to 'Notholdingmybreath@yippee.com'
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

New member
Um.....let me see if I have this straight. You're saying the "answer" to the apparent conflict between you saying "rapid speciation is part of the Biblical model" and Stripe saying speciation never happens is that Stripe says creationists shouldn't use the word species, and you agree with him?....er...Then what in the world have you been talking about when you say "rapid speciation is part of the Biblical model"? What does the word "speciation" mean when you use it? What happens biologically and population-wise in this "rapid speciation"?

Or are you just throwing out whatever nonsense you can come up with and calling it an "answer" so you can claim some sort of victory?
 
Last edited:
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
redfern said:
Yeah, now I will do pretty much as I do with any silly self-appointed conversation cop, ignore you.
Click to expand...
By composing a point-by-point response? :AMR:

Wonderful, now the onus somehow is on me to respond to some vague challenge, rather than on 6days to explain how he can know that “God’s Word" is absolute truth. Part of your job is to completely reverse the goalposts?
Click to expand...
The challenge isn't vague. In fact, it isn't even a challenge. Your demand for a reason for belief can provide nothing of substance. It's a worthless question founded on a logical fallacy.

"Reversed" goalposts present the same target.

It doesn't matter what his reason for believing is; what matters is: Is it testable? Is it falsifiable?

Well, that is a huge difference from my field of science. We go to great efforts to try to make clear to other potential scientists why we maintain the ideas we do.
Click to expand...
That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that the source of an idea has no say in its veracity.

What line of science are you in?

Miracles, which the Bible is laden with, are by definition things that fit poorly with the two criteria you itemize. Thanks for elucidating why the miracles in the Bible should not be taken as a literal events.
Click to expand...
You're going to double down on the fallacies by introducing a non sequitur?

That an idea is not testable and falsifiable does not make it impossible or false; it just makes it not science.

What you need to do is frame your ideas and pick your arena in a rational fashion. It shouldn't be our job to correct your framing.

However, Darwinists love an argument over framing, because they can stay away from the evidence.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app
 
6days

6days

New member
JoseFly said:
let me see if I have this straight.
Click to expand...
As usual... you don't have it straight. You have been shown many times that Stripe and I agree on rapid adaptation. He only objects to the use of rubbery words such as 'speciation'.*

Waiting on my money back guaranteed refund now.
 
Rosenritter

Rosenritter

New member
Caino said:
Misapplied faith is an opioid to critical thinking. The original gospel of Jesus didn't rely on the Old Testament as a foundation for its authority. The Jewish converts to their new religion about Jesus attempted to substantiate their new faith by relying on their old theology from Judaism. So for 2000 years we were stuck with a real mess that has retarded science and the quest for truth. Sadly, Bibliolatry is retarding the spread of the original gospel.
Click to expand...

Come again? Have you read the gospels? The original gospel of Jesus did rely on the Old Testament as its foundation of authority.

Luke 4:17-21 KJV
(17) And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
(18) The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
(19) To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
(20) And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
(21) And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
 
Rosenritter

Rosenritter

New member
gcthomas said:
There was thunderous silence on the topic of Christian terrorism when it was raised. I wonder why? And that the vast majority of modern terrorism is carried out by those who believe in God, Muslims internationally and Christians throughout Africa and elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I missed some posts. "Thundering silence?" Seriously? What were you expecting? This is pretty basic.

Matthew 26:51-52 KJV
(51) And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.
(52) Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
 
Rosenritter

Rosenritter

New member
Tyrathca said:
Maybe he was. Darwin wasn't an infallible prophet so what does this prove? That he was wrong about some things even things about evolution, big whoop.
Except that evolutionists wouldn't ban evolution material, since they'd have no motive. Quite the opposite really, they'd have motive to keep it (and being nazis) force others to as well.

The reality is that an understanding of what evolution said would have shown their beliefs to be in opposition to the evidence interpreted by evolution. Ummmm..... most terrorists are fundamentalist Islamists so they are probably the last people to ever accept evolution. On the contrary they're probably a version of creationists.... Not that this proves anything about either group.
Click to expand...

There's a movie I've seen a couple times. "Life is Beautiful." It's about a Jewish family under the reign of Italy's Nazi regime. I recommend it. You may have to read the English subtitles unless you speak Italian. Regardless, my point is that the Nazi propaganda was MASSIVELY Darwin, one of the historical details that is quite prevalent as within that movie. How does anyone get the idea that Nazi was not Evolutionist?
 
Rosenritter

Rosenritter

New member
Caino said:
The Pharisees and Sadducees used their Bible to reject Jesus, can ---->you<---- see??????

Calling the error filled writings of men "His Holy writings" is a form of idolatry.
Click to expand...

No, Jesus used the scripture to reject the Pharisees.

John 10:33-36 KJV
(33) The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
(34) Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
(35) If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
(36) Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Psalms 82:6-8 KJV
(6) I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
(7) But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
(8) Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.



Jesus always used the scripture as authority, he did not attack the use of scripture or dismiss scripture. In the example above, given that he'd already said that he was the judge of the world (John 5:22, 27) he also used the passage not only to identify himself as God, but also to remind the Pharisees who would be judging whom in the judgment, that they may be "gods" today but they would also die as men.
 
Rosenritter

Rosenritter

New member
Lilstu said:
Which came first man or animal? Which did God make first?

According to Genesis chapter 1, animals were made first....then man. Animals were made at Genesis 1:20-25, ....then man was made at Genesis 1:26-27

But according to Genesis chapter 2, Man was made first, and then animals were made. Man was made at Genesis 2:7 and then animals at Genesis 2:19
Click to expand...

Please tell me that you're intelligent enough to answer your own borrowed question? Would you behave any more rationally if I respond kindly? Actually, my patience is so worn out with this recycled objection because I'm amazed that anyone would consider the argument worthy to waste the keystrokes to use it as an objection.

In Genesis 2:19, does it say that it is the FIRST time that God ever created animals? Use your brain please. The logical part that deals with language, ordinal, and so forth. IT says that God created animals in front of Adam so that he could name them. Obviously these are not animals to populate the entire planet. That part was already done, as it so well stated in Genesis 1:20-25 that you already mentioned.

There isn't any contradiction in that passage to begin with. Are your reading skills that poor, or are you just copying and pasting arguments from the www.atheists.com website?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top