If Evolution

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
It's tougher to think of areas that you can keep! Chemistry, Biology and Astrology would have to go, off the top of my head.
Perhaps you could name a few different examples from each?
 

CherubRam

New member
Science is based on observation and experimentation. If nothing will evolve in a lab, then Evolution must be a false science; at least for this Universe.

Great is the faith of the Atheist.
 

SUTG

New member
Ok, we don't come from apes of any sort, God created man as man not from an ape man. And if we have evolved from an ape, then there would be no apes, they would all have evolved.

We are apes. And apes are not the same as monkeys. And asking why we have evolved from apes then why there are no apes suggests that you need to learn a bit about biology before trying to refute it.

I see you don't believe in God?

Not relevant to the current discussion.
 

CherubRam

New member
Dino bone not identified as such were carbon dated between 6000 to 16000 years old.

Great is the faith of the Atheist!
 

6days

New member
SUTG said:
... ~90% of scientific facts need to be discarded to entertain a literal interpretation of the evens in Genesis.
100% of science helps support the truth of God's Word, and the creation account. Science helps dispel false beliefs like with Darwinius Massilae, junk DNA, useless appendix, dimwitted Neandertals, warm little pond, psuedogenes, scientific racism, 'uphill' evolution, poorly designed vertebrate eye, etc.


If it wasn't for modern science some people might still believe that life can come from non life... or that fish can evolve into philosophers. OHhhhh.... Some people still believe that?? Yes, but that is a non falsifiable belief...not science.
 

marhig

Well-known member
We are apes. And apes are not the same as monkeys. And asking why we have evolved from apes then why there are no apes suggests that you need to learn a bit about biology before trying to refute it.



Not relevant to the current discussion.
If we came from apes, then apes also would have evolved into humans, and there would be no apes. You wouldn't have just some evolving and not the rest, and i trust in God and I know he created the universe and I know he created man as a man and a woman.

And yes, you being an atheist is relevent, it explains why you say some of the things you say. I often wonder why people don't believe in God? How they look at creation and not think that there has to be a greater mind behind it all. How the air is being cleansed and blows fresh for us to breathe even though we pollute it? how trees are made to take in carbon dioxide, but give off oxygen, how the rain is cleansed in the clouds to fall to the earth clean again, how we plant a seed in the ground and it grows into food to eat, how every planet around us is dead and we are the only one with life, and not only life but an abundance of it. How the sun is in the perfect place for us to have life, and how the sun reflects on the moon to bring us light in the darkness and the moon also controls the tides. And much much more. There has to be a greater mind behind this, and that mind is God. It can't just all happen from nothing, nothing comes from nothing, life comes from life. And all of it shows a picture of God.

And there was a big bang, it's when God said "let there be light" , and it was one heck of a big bang for me when I saw the true light, which is the light of Christ, which brought me out of darkness to know the living God.
 
Last edited:

ThisIsMyUserName

New member
Here I am showing you how Scripture (and therefore God) rejects evolution and the old earth from scripture, and you very rudely just snip out the verses. What, are you afraid to address what the Bible says about creation?
Nope! This is the very core of our disagreement.
Creationists maintain that scripture is "God's word", which is a matter of pure faith. A faith that is not shared by me, nor by the majority of Christians worldwide, cause we can recognise man-made authorship when we see it!

I've already stated that if you read Genesis literally, then that is indeed what it says.


Go back and respond to the verses I provided. Otherwise I'm going to call you a coward and a fraud. Coward, because you won't address a straight up refutation of your position. Fraud, because you ignore evidence that goes against your position, and continue to push your own beliefs as if they were correct all along.
No need.
You can call me whatever makes you happy.
Scripture is NOT evidence when it comes to natural science.
Just check out Leviticus 14. Are you seriously going to insist that is a useful medical procedure if taken literally ?????


My argument is that scripture states that the earth is young, less than 10,000 years, and that God made man in the beginning of creation, not after millions of years.
Not quite, scripture never explicitly says anything about the age of the world. That's faulty human interpretation.
 

Greg Jennings

New member
:darwinsm:

You don't know the difference between addition and subtraction, but Six is a weasel?

:mock: Bruce.



It must be the way I say it is, because Darwinism!

This is the fallacy of begging the question. Your conclusions rely on assuming the truth of your Darwinsm.

:yawn:



You're all bluster, aren't you?

A neutral mutation neither helps nor hurts an individual.
How does having 1 dorsal fin instead of 2 help OR hurt a shark in comparison to its peers?


Not ONE of you YECs can answer that question. And you still won't. You just whine


Truly, that really is pathetic. You can't even admit when you are wrong.

I hope Tambora and 6days approval are enough for you. I'll take the entire scientific community at my back

:mock: Stipe
 

Greg Jennings

New member
100% of science helps support the truth of God's Word, and the creation account. Science helps dispel false beliefs like with Darwinius Massilae, junk DNA, useless appendix, dimwitted Neandertals, warm little pond, psuedogenes, scientific racism, 'uphill' evolution, poorly designed vertebrate eye, etc.


If it wasn't for modern science some people might still believe that life can come from non life... or that fish can evolve into philosophers. OHhhhh.... Some people still believe that?? Yes, but that is a non falsifiable belief...not science.

:rotfl: :chuckle:

Do you read this from a script?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
It's tougher to think of areas that you can keep! Chemistry, Biology and Astronomy would have to go, off the top of my head.

Perhaps you could name a few different examples from each?

The entire fields have to be discarded.

Alright, just so we're clear, you're asserting that all chemistry, biology, and astronomy would have to go out the window to be able to claim that the Bible can be taken (except in obvious cases) literally.

I think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

There are plenty of creationists who are scientists in each of those fields, and I'm pretty sure they don't have to throw out the facts of their respective fields just to be able to reconcile them to special creation.

So again, perhaps you could give a few specific examples from each of the fields (Chemistry, Biology, and Astronomy) that if one believes in special creation they would have to reject as science.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
A neutral mutation...
... is an oxymoron.

How does having 1 dorsal fin instead of 2 help OR hurt a shark in comparison to its peers?
No idea. It's irrelevant to the fact that random changes are bad for information.

Not ONE of you YECs can answer that question. And you still won't. You just whine
:blabla:

Truly, that really is pathetic. You can't even admit when you are wrong.I hope Tambora and 6days approval are enough for you. I'll take the entire scientific community at my back

:yawn:
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Nope! This is the very core of our disagreement.
Creationists maintain that scripture is "God's word", which is a matter of pure faith.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. - 2 Timothy 3:16-17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Timothy3:16-17&version=NKJV

A faith that is not shared by me, nor by the majority of Christians worldwide,

I'm pretty sure to be able to make such a claim, you would have to know all the beliefs of every Christian in the world.

Please don't assert things that you have no knowledge of.

cause we can recognise man-made authorship when we see it!

So you're saying that 40 different people wrote 66 books all with a single plot line running through all of them? Oh, and that's over a course of 1500 years, where many of the authors never even met most of the previous authors?

You try getting 40 authors into a single room and have them write a book with a cohesive plot, no contradictions, no errors, and all be focused on one Person.

Then try to do it over the course of 1500 years.

The only way that such a book could be so consistent and focused is if it was given by God.

I've already stated that if you read Genesis literally, then that is indeed what it says.

If you read the ENTIRE BIBLE literally (and realistically literal, making note of figures of speech), not just Genesis, then you see that:

1. God created (in 6 days).
*God made the heavens and the earth (he created all the matter in the universe and then molded it into the celestial bodies we see today), and light on the first day.
*God, on the second day, made the hydroplates, and called the firmament Heaven.
*On the third day, He separated the Seas from the Earth. He made grass, herbs that yield seed, and fruit trees.
*On the fourth day, He made the stars that we see at night, and He made the Sun and Moon, and then stretched out the heavens (ie the universe).
*On the fifth day, God created sea creatures and birds, and told them to "be fruitful and multiply."
*On the sixth day, God created land animals, man (Adam and Eve), and told them all to "be fruitful and multiply." He then gave man dominion over all of creation.
*On the seventh day, God ceased from creating.
2. Man fell
*Man sinned, and was cast out of Heaven.
*Because of how wicked man became, God destroyed all of mankind, but saved Noah and his family and all the different kinds of animals
*God picked a man and made him the father of a nation, whom He called His people.
*The rest of the Old Testament is the history of those people.
3. God reconciled man
*God sent His Son to die for mankind.
4. God will reward man
*People who love God will be rewarded with eternal life with Him
*People who hate God, or reject Him, will be rewarded with eternal separation from Him

That's the Bible taken literally.

No need.
You can call me whatever makes you happy.

:noid:

Scripture is NOT evidence when it comes to natural science.

Saying something doesn't make it true.

Scripture says that God divided the waters above and the waters below, putting a firmament between them.

Ever heard of the Hydroplate theory?

Just check out Leviticus 14. Are you seriously going to insist that is a useful medical procedure if taken literally ?????

Red herring and rabbit trail.

Not quite, scripture never explicitly says anything about the age of the world. That's faulty human interpretation.

It gives genealogies and ages of many people in those genealogies. Scientists use genealogies to determine how old something might be based on how long someone lived before a notable event occurred.
 

Greg Jennings

New member
... is an oxymoron.

No idea. It's irrelevant to the fact that random changes are bad for information.

:blabla:



:yawn:

Again no answer.


You don't even want to have a serious conversation. You're just a troll.

Good to know you're so dishonest you can't admit to being wrong. You can't face facts.

:mock: Stipe
:mock: YEC
 
Top