Creation vs. Evolution II

[MichaelCadry]

If you mean they list 56 organisms sharing similar traits with different organisms...yes. You could easily list hundreds more. If you think they list organisms that share common ancestry... you are mistaken.

*I understand why.*



Yes... that is true. Science always supports the truth of God's Word.*

Dear 6days,

I can see how Jose is trying to do your reputation harm, but it doesn't work with me. You can see that Jose doesn't want to defend one candidate from the list. And he just says, "Not to you." So nothing like a real debate, I guess. Jose closes the door from between him and you. He just likes to gripe and cause imaginary arguments. What else is new?

I am thinking that I should close down this Thread soon. It's not hopping like it used to do. Oh well.

May The Lord Be With You In All That You Do!!

Michael

 

[gcthomas]

If you mean they list 56 organisms sharing similar traits with different organisms...yes. You could easily list hundreds more. If you think they list organisms that share common ancestry... you are mistaken.

*I understand why.*



Yes... that is true. Science always supports the truth of God's Word.*

So, let me summarise your circular argument in this post:

If evolution was true, then there should be transitional fossils.
Transitional fossils were presented, but you reject them because they could only exist if evolution was true, and since you don't believe that then the fossils cannot be transitional.
No transitionals, therefore evolution is false.

Have I got that right?

 

[6days]

So, let me summarise your circular argument in this post:
If evolution was true, then there should be transitional fossils.
Transitional fossils were presented, but you reject them because they could only exist if evolution was true, and since you don't believe that then the fossils cannot be transitional.
No transitionals, therefore evolution is false.
Have I got that right?

We could flip your words and say the reverse. You believe in common ancestry, therefore some fossils must represent transitionals.*


Which homonid fossil would you like to defend as clearly being our direct ancestor?*

 

[gcthomas]

We could flip your words and say the reverse. You believe in common ancestry, therefore some fossils must represent transitionals.*


Which homonid fossil would you like to defend as clearly being our direct ancestor?*

We were discussing why you quote-mined dictionary definitions to pretend that evolutionism referred to all uses of the word evolution in science(eg. in stellar evolution.)

Why did you do that?

 

[6days]

Which homonid fossil would you like to defend as clearly being our direct ancestor?

We were discussing why you quote-mined dictionary definitions to pretend that evolutionism referred to all uses of the word evolution in science(eg. in stellar evolution.)
Why did you do that?

Wow..... So no clear transitional? Smiles at your abrupt change of topic.*


I flipped back through several pages but didn't find our 'dictionary' conversation. (not easy on phone I'm using at moment).

As I recall *though you had posted a link with a definition to the word evolutionist. They said the definition especially aplied to a person believing in biological evolution (not exclusively). I argued that it also applied to chemical and stellar evolution.*

 

[gcthomas]

As I recall *though you had posted a link with a definition to the word evolutionist. They said the definition especially aplied to a person believing in biological evolution (not exclusively).

No — read it again. The especially part you left out said especially Darwin's theory … not especially biological evolution..

I argued that it also applied to chemical and stellar evolution.*

Yes you did, and it was only supported by quote-mining a dictionary definition, so not a very good argument.

 

[Jose Fly]

If you mean they list 56 organisms sharing similar traits with different organisms...yes. You could easily list hundreds more. If you think they list organisms that share common ancestry... you are mistaken.

*I understand why.*



Yes... that is true. Science always supports the truth of God's Word.*

I don't know which is more pathetic; that you actually wrote that up and hit "reply", or that you apparently thought anyone would find that to be anything other than what it obviously is....a slimy attempt to weasel out of your previous dishonesty.

And I wonder if you even realize how that sort of response is exactly the "entertainment" many of us keep citing as our reason for continuing to engage you. See, the whole structure here is that we find different ways to present you with conflicts...conflicts between your statements, conflicts between you and other creationists, conflicts between your beliefs and reality...and then sit back, watch, and laugh at you as you try and avoid having to face those conflicts.

For example, the main point of this latest exchange is how you deliberately left off the last half of a dictionary definition. I've asked you three times to explain why you did that, and you've tried a number of dishonest tactics to attempt to avoid the issue. You tried ignoring it, you tried lying (claiming you'd already answered), and now this latest time you tried ignoring it again, apparently hoping I would forget about it.

That's the "entertainment"...kind of a "what stupid, ignorant, or dishonest thing will 6days do next" deal. And sure enough, you delivered. But what's truly funny is how you don't even realize what's going on!

Nor do you realize just how this sort of thing reflects on your faith.

 

[6days]

*Yes you did, and it was only supported by quote-mining a dictionary definition, so not a very good argument.

*

Most dictionaries refer to an evolutionist as a person who believes in a theory of evolution.... or the theories (plural). By definition an evolutionist is one who BELIEVES IN biological (or Darwinian) evolution...and/ or chemical evolution...and/ or stellar evolution.*


Dictionary.com

1.*a*person*who*believes*in*or*supports*a theory*of*evolution,*especially*inbiology.


Oxford

A person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection


thefree dictionary

*a person who believes in a theory of evolution, esp Darwin's theory of the evolution of plant and animal species

 

[gcthomas]

*

Most dictionaries refer to an evolutionist as a person who believes in a theory of evolution.... or the theories (plural). By definition an evolutionist is one who BELIEVES IN biological (or Darwinian) evolution...and/ or chemical evolution...and/ or stellar evolution.*


Dictionary.com

1.*a*person*who*believes*in*or*supports*a theory*of*evolution,*especially*inbiology.


Oxford

A person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection


thefree dictionary

*a person who believes in a theory of evolution, esp Darwin's theory of the evolution of plant and animal species

It is fun seeing you wriggle so!

You can stop this now by finding a dictionary that mentions stellar evolution in the evolutionism definition. Because although you say it is included by definition, your definitions all seem to have it missing.

 

[MichaelCadry]

It is fun seeing you wriggle so!

You can stop this now by finding a dictionary that mentions stellar evolution in the evolutionism definition. Because although you say it is included by definition, your definitions all seem to have it missing.

Dear gcthomas,

It so happens that Greg Jennings birthday is today. Please wish him a fantastic one!! It's nice to see that Angel reads some of our posts also. But Greg, Have a Good One and Make It Count!!

Tons Of Love Coming Your Way, To Both Of You,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

It is fun seeing you wriggle so!

You can stop this now by finding a dictionary that mentions stellar evolution in the evolutionism definition. Because although you say it is included by definition, your definitions all seem to have it missing.

Dear gcthomas,

I don't see 6days wriggling at all. You all are just on a trivial subject. Why don't you discuss how it is that God created Man in His Image. So, you all want to hope that our God is a chimp-face?? Jesus said, "He who hath seen Me, has seen the Father." So Jesus did not look like a chimp, but instead a Man, and that nails it down right there.

Your feedback? Make It Good!! I love you all!!

Michael

 

[Jonahdog]

Dear gcthomas,

I don't see 6days wriggling at all. You all are just on a trivial subject. Why don't you discuss how it is that God created Man in His Image. So, you all want to hope that our God is a chimp-face?? Jesus said, "He who hath seen Me, has seen the Father." So Jesus did not look like a chimp, but instead a Man, and that nails it down right there.

Your feedback? Make It Good!! I love you all!!

Michael

What exactly is your deity's image? Male? female" tall? short? thin? fat? old? young? dark skin? light skin? Does your deity have nipples?

Or is the image based on intellect? If so, the image is a bit blurry. However, fundamentalists have a simple answer for that---The Fall---through which all the ills of the earth were caused by the actions of 1 human couple a few thousand years ago.
Oh my.

 

[redfern]

If you mean they list 56 organisms sharing similar traits with different organisms...yes. You could easily list hundreds more. If you think they list organisms that share common ancestry... you are mistaken.

Several times I have seen you say that organizing fossils by similar morphology is not convincing to you. My question to you – given a large collection of fossils, what scientifically measurable characteristics of fossils would you require before admitting that some of the fossils likely had a close ancestral relationship to each other?

 

[redfern]

Science always supports the truth of God's Word.

Of course you and I (and others) know this is just you once again parroting a lie.

As Snelling showed, isochron dating (part of science) consistently shows meteorites are 4.5 billions of years old. The science of geology shows the earth is billions of years old. The science of Theory of Evolution shows an old earth, as does the science of cosmology, and astronomy, and geophysics, and genetics, and nuclear physics. Core principles of physics and biology show that rivers do not turn to blood, nor women to salt. Guys don’t live in fish for days at a time. Snakes have never had the capability of human speech, and donkeys don’t verbally argue with their masters. Sticks don’t turn into snakes.

And I have been waiting for months for you to list the prominent scientific institutions that train and /or employ the top scientists who concur in your specious and false claim.

 

[redfern]

I am thinking that I should close down this Thread soon. It's not hopping like it used to do.

If the thread is dying, instead of closing it, why not just let it die a natural death, like most threads do? And remember, sometimes relevant information is posted to threads that have been dormant for a while.

 

[6days]

Several times I have seen you say that organizing fossils by similar morphology is not convincing to you. My question to you – given a large collection of fossils, what scientifically measurable characteristics of fossils would you require before admitting that some of the fossils likely had a close ancestral relationship to each other?

I'm not sure. DNA evidence would help .somewhat if it could prove interbreeding. Or... a time machine would help.

****The problem Is that even in living organisms, evolutionists do not always use homology as evidence of close ancestry. Sometimes they say its analogous...
it looks similar but it doesn't seem to fit the imaginary tree; *so its called analogous. Also even in living creatures, mistakes have been made classifying things. There can even be huge differences between male and female of same species. So.... when you start to assemble and arrange bones in patterns to fit your beliefs, it isnt very convincing. Even with the arranged patterns, paleontologists often re-shuffle the patterns.*

Science always supports the truth of God's Word.

Of course you and I (and others) know this is just you once again parroting a lie.

Science ALWAYS supports and is consistent with the Word of the One who created science and scientists...and everything else.*

As Snelling showed, isochron dating (part of science) consistently shows meteorites are 4.5 billions of years old.

He nor more says they are 4.5 billion years old; than you would say dinosaurs lived 35,000 years ago after seeing C14 lab results. You posted part of what Snelling said before about meteorites, but ignored his conclusion.

The science of geology shows the earth is billions of years old.

Science says no such thing. Evolutionist eye glasses / interpretations of data say the earth is billions of years old. When we put on clear glasses we see how geology supports the truth of Gods Word and the global flood.*

The science of Theory of Evolution shows an old earth, as does the science of cosmology, and astronomy, and geophysics, and genetics, and nuclear physics.

All the various fields of science help support the truth of God'sWord. *We have discussed a little in the past... we interpret evidence differently. Examples:

1. Comets can't last billions of years. They support a young earth.*

However you imagine there is an Oort belt...comets in waiting.*

2. We know soft tissue and DNA decomposes rapidly. Soft tissue in dinosaurs support a young earth.

However, you imagine that iron or something must have preserved soft tissue millions of years.

3. We know deleterious mutations are accumulating in our genome... supporting God's Word of a perfect creation that has been corrupted.

However, you imagine that things might have been different in the past...or that there is some saving mechanism we don't understand.

Etc etc... Science DOES support the truth of God's Word, and helps to reveal the majesty of our Creator.*

Core principles of physics and biology show that rivers do not turn to blood, nor women to salt. Guys don’t live in fish for days at a time. Snakes have never had the capability of human speech, and donkeys don’t verbally argue with their masters. Sticks don’t turn into snakes.

That is all true. We can use the scientific method prove that. However, we can't use the scientific method to test a unique one time event in the past. You can't use the scientific method to prove your 'miracles' either, such as life from non life. What we can do though is use logic and science to help confirm our beliefs about the past. Science does help confirm the inerrancy of scripture.*

And I have been waiting for months for you to list the prominent scientific institutions that train and /or employ the top scientists who concur in your specious and false claim.

Isn't it amazing that in spite of these prominent institutions being solidly against Biblical creation... that there are now thousands of PhD scientists who reject common ancestry beliefs. They obviously understand the theory....and even though indoctrinated in Evolutionism - They feel there are better explanations of the evidence.*

 

[MichaelCadry]

I'm not sure. DNA evidence would help .somewhat if it could prove interbreeding. Or... a time machine would help.

****The problem Is that even in living organisms, evolutionists do not always use homology as evidence of close ancestry. Sometimes they say its analogous...
it looks similar but it doesn't seem to fit the imaginary tree; *so its called analogous. Also even in living creatures, mistakes have been made classifying things. There can even be huge differences between male and female of same species. So.... when you start to assemble and arrange bones in patterns to fit your beliefs, it isnt very convincing. Even with the arranged patterns, paleontologists often re-shuffle the patterns.*

Science ALWAYS supports and is consistent with the Word of the One who created science and scientists...and everything else.*

He nor more says they are 4.5 billion years old; than you would say dinosaurs lived 35,000 years ago after seeing C14 lab results. You posted part of what Snelling said before about meteorites, but ignored his conclusion.

Science says no such thing. Evolutionist eye glasses / interpretations of data say the earth is billions of years old. When we put on clear glasses we see how geology supports the truth of Gods Word and the global flood.*

All the various fields of science help support the truth of God'sWord. *We have discussed a little in the past... we interpret evidence differently. Examples:

1. Comets can't last billions of years. They support a young earth.*

However you imagine there is an Oort belt...comets in waiting.*

2. We know soft tissue and DNA decomposes rapidly. Soft tissue in dinosaurs support a young earth.

However, you imagine that iron or something must have preserved soft tissue millions of years.

3. We know deleterious mutations are accumulating in our genome... supporting God's Word of a perfect creation that has been corrupted.

However, you imagine that things might have been different in the past...or that there is some saving mechanism we don't understand.

Etc etc... Science DOES support the truth of God's Word, and helps to reveal the majesty of our Creator.*



That is all true. We can use the scientific method prove that. However, we can't use the scientific method to test a unique one time event in the past. You can't use the scientific method to prove your 'miracles' either, such as life from non life. What we can do though is use logic and science to help confirm our beliefs about the past. Science does help confirm the inerrancy of scripture.*

Isn't it amazing that in spite of these prominent institutions being solidly against Biblical creation... that there are now thousands of PhD scientists who reject common ancestry beliefs. They obviously understand the theory....and even though indoctrinated in Evolutionism - They feel there are better explanations of the evidence.*

Dear 6days & redfern,

You're forgetting that Our God can create children to Abraham out of a few rocks. I mean, if God can create man from the ground, He certainly can create them from some rocks. As long as the rocks have the building blocks needed, namely certain elements and minerals, it's easy for God. If God can create man from the ground, He can everything else from the ground, if He so wishes. You forget, redfern, that Our God can do tons more than just the instances you have mentioned. And if God can create man from dust, He can certainly change a woman into salt. What's that to Him??!

Now, on the premise that you don't believe in God, you have a problem. There are no other explanations except God creating what He wants to and He is a Master Chemist and Biologist. As long as He can put together certain elements or minerals, or atoms and molecules, He can do wonderful things.

Our God did everything you mentioned. You don't know Him so you have questions and disbelief of how things came to be, because there is no other answer. You are forgetting that God saved Daniel and his friends, first from a den of lions, who were evidently, not hungry! Also, the same Daniel and his friends survived being burned in a great, extremely hot furnace of fire. How are we to tell you how things came to be, when you don't first believe in the true answer? It's like, how do we tell you the sky is blue, when you don't believe there is such a color as sky blue? In other words, you won't believe the truth, so we can't tell you how it happened, then. Your mind is cluttered by trash from Satan, and you are just where he wants you to believe.

And make no mistake about it, redfern, you will terribly regret your decision not to believe in that God Whom you deny? You will gnash your teeth and extremely cry tears. You won't believe how you had the chance to believe and live forever happily, and you didn't take advantage of that situation. There is no talking to you because you have blinders on and don't want to believe in God, but instead you are allowing Satan to befuddle your thoughts. Ahh, what good does it mean to talk with you!! I quit for now.

Michael

 

[Jose Fly]

there are now thousands of PhD scientists who reject common ancestry beliefs.

No there's not. That's just another one of your false talking points.

 

[6days]

No there's not.(thousands of PhD scientists)

Sure there are! There are many in Australia, Canada, Usa, UK, and even Russia. One of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, South Korea may have the most active group of Bible believing scientists. Also, keep in mind that many creationist scientists don't add their names to these lists for fear of some type of retribution.*

 

[Jose Fly]

Sure there are!

No there aren't. You've provided absolutely no evidence for the existence of these "thousands of PhD scientists who reject common ancestry".