Creation vs. Evolution

MichaelCadry · Oct 5, 2016

Caino said:
I grew up in a moderate Methodist church. I never believed much of Genesis. Its funny, I had no problem with Jesus, it was just all the nonsense associated with him.

Anyway, If I said I saw a purple dinosaur at the mall that would be so silly to you that you wouldn't react or even respond. However, when I say that much of the Jews self important creation story is human speculation, you become nasty and defensive, that really bothers you because deep down in your heart you hear the truth of what I'm saying.

The Jews hated Jesus, not because he was so obviously wrong, it was because he was so obviously right.

The facts contained within the archeological record of the earth don't match what Genesis says. You can mock me and be as nasty as you want, its not my earth or my truth. The facts still remain while you are just emotional.

Dear Caino,

Oh, the fangs come out. I'm not trying to be nasty at all. I'm not so emotional at all either. No, I don't deep in my heart believe what you are saying. It is all in your head. Caino, if you saw a purple dinosaur, I could agree with you if it were stuffed with something. We're talking about human beings here and our Heavenly Hosts, and our God and His Son!! And the Holy Ghost!!! You are WAY off-base.

I have no idea how Methodists believe or what they believe that is different than Nazarenes. I don't feel like I would like to ever visit a Methodist Church. Sounds too methodical, to be honest. Perhaps it was a lousy church or pastor. You never know. Perhaps your church experience wasn't all that it should have been, like mine, and many other people's have been. I am sorry for you. That doesn't mean I am belittling you because I say that I am sorry. Believe with your heart, as God and Jesus would have you. I'm not trying to hurt you.

May God Be Near You!!

Michael

MichaelCadry · Oct 5, 2016

Caino said:
No, you weren't hoping I had data, that's dishonest. You have a closed mind, sealed by the bias of religious speculation. You put your faith in Holy books rather than the spirit of God, therefore such a shaky foundation leads you to be defensive towards anything which conflicts with that false foundation.

In terms of YEC what you have is faith not proof.

Dear Caino,

I hope that Rosen won't be upset if I butt in here. What he believes is not on a shaky, false foundation. You just believe these scientists who stick millions of years down your throat, instead of the thousands of years they really are. You just don't get it. Were they there millions of years ago to authenticate that those fossil bones were truly from that time?? There was no one around 1 million years ago to back up their claims. And lousy dating methods has tons to do with it. They just say millions because they don't want someone to acknowledge that their methods don't measure up. That's like me saying that I had a friend a million years back who said I had nice brown hair. There is no way we can go back a million years ago to corroborate that story I told. Do you see now?? No one can prove it and their dating methods stink and serve only their M.O. Let them tell you a Lucy story!

Why do you believe in Urantia then? Whatever makes you choose them?? Because they fill in the cracks with just the right lies and stories?? What is it?

Michael

Caino · Oct 5, 2016

MichaelCadry said:
Dear Caino,

So you are woefully ignorant to believe their stories of millions of years, instead of mere thousands. Where's the proof that it has been 'millions' of years? Haven't we been screwed before with that stuff?? Sure Carbon-14, etc. And Lucy too!! I think their aging methods leave a lot to be desired indeed. Read a comment from the same article your link provided:

R Addison
Mar 5, 2015

I am thankful to have read, but wonder whether ur-238 micron-Dust has actually changed the Carbon-14 dating to carbon-13--this relates to aerosolization charcterizations--in winds 1,000's of miles & perturbations of measurements!

I believe him more than I believe the article or the jawbone and cranium aging measurements and methods. There is no way that I believe man has been here for millions of years!! No wonder you believe in a make-believe religion called Urantia Book and Pages!! Go with the underdog!!

Michael

See radiometric dating, plate tectonics, the speed of light, mountain formation, the age of the universe, the fossils we have unearthed, Cains fear of people out in the world......

Caino · Oct 5, 2016

MichaelCadry said:
Dear Caino,

I hope that Rosen won't be upset if I butt in here. What he believes is not on a shaky, false foundation. You just believe these scientists who stick millions of years down your throat, instead of the thousands of years they really are. You just don't get it. Were they there millions of years ago to authenticate that those fossil bones were truly from that time?? There was no one around 1 million years ago to back up their claims. And lousy dating methods has tons to do with it. They just say millions because they don't want someone to acknowledge that their methods don't measure up. That's like me saying that I had a friend a million years back who said I had nice brown hair. There is no way we can go back a million years ago to corroborate that story I told. Do you see now?? No one can prove it and their dating methods stink and serve only their M.O. Let them tell you a Lucy story!

Why do you believe in Urantia then? Whatever makes you choose them?? Because they fill in the cracks with just the right lies and stories?? What is it?

Michael

You don't "get it", they have made you to feel guilty if you question the Bible, they have convinced you that to question the writings of the preachers that you have no faith, they have shoved a ridiculous YEC/Noah flood down your throat and told you that you will be sent to a burning place forever if you don't believe them!

What if you were to man up, grow a set and question the so called "inerrant" councils of church men instead of vilifying all scientist??????????

Caino · Oct 5, 2016

MichaelCadry said:
Dear Caino,

Oh, the fangs come out. I'm not trying to be nasty at all. I'm not so emotional at all either. No, I don't deep in my heart believe what you are saying. It is all in your head. Caino, if you saw a purple dinosaur, I could agree with you if it were stuffed with something. We're talking about human beings here and our Heavenly Hosts, and our God and His Son!! And the Holy Ghost!!! You are WAY off-base.

I have no idea how Methodists believe or what they believe that is different than Nazarenes. I don't feel like I would like to ever visit a Methodist Church. Sounds too methodical, to be honest. Perhaps it was a lousy church or pastor. You never know. Perhaps your church experience wasn't all that it should have been, like mine, and many other people's have been. I am sorry for you. That doesn't mean I am belittling you because I say that I am sorry. Believe with your heart, as God and Jesus would have you. I'm not trying to hurt you.

May God Be Near You!!

Michael

Holy men could never be wrong about anything.

linger:

Rosenritter · Oct 5, 2016

Caino said:
Honest debate? You aren't an honest debater, you are a defender of a faith in a young earth which you claim was sealed in the human sacrifice of Jesus. Fat chance you would set that aside for ANY evidence provided!!! You can't concede debate points, your religious pride won't allow you to, you will just keep making excuses for the blatant inconsistencies between the spurious claims of the Jews about their grossly exaggerated past and the abundance of scientific evidence of this old earth which has been host to many epochs of life and geological fluctuation.

Funny how I'm the one asking you to present your evidence and validate your reasoning, and you're the one that's putting forth unfounded claims and retreating with the claim of "you wouldn't consider anything reasonable." That's quite the demonstration of "hypocritical."

Rosenritter · Oct 5, 2016

Caino said:
See radiometric dating, plate tectonics, the speed of light, mountain formation, the age of the universe, the fossils we have unearthed, Cains fear of people out in the world......

Because the speed of an object we observe now really proves how old the universe is? I'm just waiting for Caino to explain that one.

gcthomas · Oct 5, 2016

Rosenritter said:
Because the speed of an object we observe now really proves how old the universe is? I'm just waiting for Caino to explain that one.

Don't be silly. Of course he means that the speed of light is observed to be constant over the last few billion years.

Caino · Oct 5, 2016

Rosenritter said:
Because the speed of an object we observe now really proves how old the universe is? I'm just waiting for Caino to explain that one.

The speed of light tells us something about the minimum of the age of the Suns, stars, galaxies etc that omit the light.

But in Bibliolatry everything is 6,000 years old so something is wrong with science.

Caino · Oct 5, 2016

Rosenritter said:
Funny how I'm the one asking you to present your evidence and validate your reasoning, and you're the one that's putting forth unfounded claims and retreating with the claim of "you wouldn't consider anything reasonable." That's quite the demonstration of "hypocritical."

I presented a 1,000,000 year old mandible and you presented snarky.

redfern · Oct 5, 2016

6days said:
… Darwin was wrong about natural selection
Darwin made the mistake of unbounded extrapolation. He said "Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do much by his powers of artificial selection, I see no limit to the amount of change...by natures power of selection". (Breeders understand there are limits to selection) Funny and sad, but Darwin believed given enough time nature could change a bear into a whale.
Lynn Margulis, evolutionary biologist and one time wife of Carl Sagan explained that natural selection can elimininate...it can not create.
Anyways... Darwin was wrong about what selection can do. It helps to preserve life forms but can't create.

I think I understand the difference between the roles of mutations and of natural selection in the ToE, and I think you do too. Are you really saying that Darwin himself didn’t understand that natural selection “selects” and does not introduce new variants?

redfern · Oct 5, 2016

6days said:
Elephant hurling is a debate tactic in which a debater will refer to a large body of 'evidence' which supposedly supports the debater's arguments, but without demonstrating any evidence which supports their argument.

Elephant hurling? I haven’t heard that one before. Is it like, for example, Jose Fly asks for a succinct definition of genetic information, and you respond with:

6days said:
…I have provided various definitions... various websites... and even books for you to read where geneticists (Both secular and creationist) discuss functional genetic information....apobetic information....specified complexity....loss of genetic variation ...fitness reduction....cosyntics....operational universal information...etc.

But what you do not do is show that you can present a concise, meaningful, and testable definition of genetic information. That kinda looks like you are resorting to chucking pachyderms to me.

redfern · Oct 5, 2016

Caino said:
Yes, Australian Aboriginies have been there for 60,000 years+ American Indians for tens of thousands of years. Man is about 1,000,000 years old. There have been migrations all over the globe.

Caino, as you noticed, 6days saw an opportunity to go after you on this 1,000,000 years old claim, and is trying to hold your feet to the fire to back it up. 6days is still smarting from some specific claims he recently made that he couldn’t support.

Caino · Oct 5, 2016

redfern said:
Caino, as you noticed, 6days saw an opportunity to go after you on this 1,000,000 years old claim, and is trying to hold your feet to the fire to back it up. 6days is still smarting from some specific claims he recently made that he couldn’t support.

Yes I see, it's just another day at the AIG museum.

patrick jane · Oct 5, 2016

redfern said:
Caino, as you noticed, 6days saw an opportunity to go after you on this 1,000,000 years old claim, and is trying to hold your feet to the fire to back it up. 6days is still smarting from some specific claims he recently made that he couldn’t support.

6days is not "smarting"

6days · Oct 5, 2016

gcthomas said:
Don't be silly. Of course he means that the speed of light is observed to be constant over the last few billion years.

Don't be silly. We observe that the one way speed of light is constant. But we don't observe billions of years....you believe in billions of years.

6days · Oct 5, 2016

Caino said:
I presented a 1,000,000 year old mandible

No... What you did is show a picture of a mandible.

6days · Oct 5, 2016

redfern said:
*what you do not do is show that you can present a concise, meaningful, and testable definition of genetic information.

Jose is a bit forgetful. I have given concise definitions. But, I attached a qualifier saying that geneticists, and information theorists have written complete books and articles on the topic. I have said that genetic info is DNA containing complex specified instructions. Both evolutionist and creationist geneticists 'measure' loss of genetic info when they recognize there is a loss of fitness/ loss of variation / loss of viability.*

redfern said:
*That kinda looks like you are resorting to chucking pachyderms to me.

Haha... thanks for the chuckle. Glad we can disagree, but still have some fun.

Rosenritter · Oct 5, 2016

gcthomas said:
Don't be silly. Of course he means that the speed of light is observed to be constant over the last few billion years.

You've been observing the speed of light for a few billion years? Wow. You're older than I thought.

6days · Oct 5, 2016

redfern said:
I think I understand the difference between the roles of mutations and of natural selection in the ToE, and I think you do too. Are you really saying that Darwin himself didn’t understand that natural selection “selects” and does not introduce new variants?

Darwin did not fully understand selection... an idea he borrowed from a creationist. Selection only eliminates pre-existing information; it does not create new info. *Darwin may or may not have understood that, but he seemed to think there was no limits to selection. Any plant or animal breeder knows there are limits to selection.*Darwin may have had a better understanding of things had he and Mendel worked together.

Creation vs. Evolution

LIFETIME MEMBER

LIFETIME MEMBER

BANNED

BANNED

BANNED

New member

New member

New member

BANNED

BANNED

Active member

Active member

Active member

BANNED

BANNED

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member