6days
New member
And somewhat useful for showing dinosaurs existed far less than 45000 years ago.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
6days
New member
So, we agree that the cause existed eternally. The evidence for that cause points to the Creator God of the Bible.
Let's try a thought experiment.
You tell a child: "I will be leaving the house for a while now. Do not, under any circumstances, touch teh aquarium. If you do, I will punish you with frugsmorp".
A. What are the chances that the child touches the aquarium?
B. Will the child understand what the punishment will be?
Oh. Not at all irrelevant. Very much not so. The child has never seen "frugsmorp" happen before. he doesn't know what it is. There is little point in threatening him with "frugsmorp" if he doesn't know what it is.
Actually, it is. And it is irrelevant because of what you ignored from my response.
Cross Reference
New member
I believe the Old Earth account of a creation before Adam that was destroyed by God much as God will soon destroy the creation in which we exist and for the same reason He will destroy it.
You said it depends on whether the child loves the parent.
1. Not really. Anybody who has raised children knows that
2. If the child doesn't understand the threatened punishment, there is no point in the threat.
That's right.
What kid who loved his father would willingly disobey him?
Probably. :idunno:
I guess you don't have children.
Here's the point. If death did not exist before "the Fall"- then what would be the point of God threatening Adam with "death"? Adam would have no idea what that meant.
6days
New member
That argument must be in the revised edition of 'Atheism for Dummies"?
You seem to think God was capable of creating a fully grown man, but incapable creating him with knowledge?
Like many atheist arguments....its jut another illogical one.
6days
New member
You believe it.... but that is not what Jesus believed; search His teaching, and you will see Jesus was a young earth creationist.
Consider yourself punched in the nose. I am fed up with being called an atheist because I don't agree with stupid fundamentalist notions.
6days
New member
I didn't call you an atheist Chair. But you logic was typical of illogical atheist arguments.
Jose Fly
New member
Not when it comes to cloning, where the offspring is a genetic copy of the parent. So if Eve was a clone from Adam's rib, she would be a genetic copy of Adam, complete with Y-chromosome.
Well that's the luxury of writing stories with gods in them. Because they're gods, you can have them do anything.
What do you think might be in "rib DNA" that wouldn't be in the DNA found elsewhere in a person's body?
No one has said otherwise.
You are quite unique Lon.
Cross Reference
New member
Jose Fly
New member
Again, only if you are the type of person who when confronted with an extreme outlier among a wealth of other congruent data, says "Go with the outlier generated by misusing a method, and throw out all the rest of the data".
But I guess that's what creationism forces you to do.
Jose Fly
New member
I also notice no creationist answered my question from yesterday. Let's try again...
I also have one more question for the creationists here: Do you guys have anything new?
I ask this because....well, let's be honest here....pretty much all the creationists arguments that have been posted here aren't all that new and many of them are quite old. That's important because as anyone can tell just by looking around, none of those old creationist arguments have had any impact on science at all. In fact, rather than even nudge science more towards creationism, the trend is, has been, and continues to be in the opposite direction.
So if none of these old arguments have had any impact on science whatsoever over the last say....100 years, what makes the creationists think they will now?
It's like creationists are saying "I know this moon recession young-earth argument hasn't gone anywhere or accomplished anything in at least 50 years, but maybe if I repeat it here at ToL it will!!"
And if that's not what your mindset is, then why are you rehashing old ineffective creationist arguments? Shouldn't you be working on coming up with something new?
I ask this because....well, let's be honest here....pretty much all the creationists arguments that have been posted here aren't all that new and many of them are quite old. That's important because as anyone can tell just by looking around, none of those old creationist arguments have had any impact on science at all. In fact, rather than even nudge science more towards creationism, the trend is, has been, and continues to be in the opposite direction.
So if none of these old arguments have had any impact on science whatsoever over the last say....100 years, what makes the creationists think they will now?
It's like creationists are saying "I know this moon recession young-earth argument hasn't gone anywhere or accomplished anything in at least 50 years, but maybe if I repeat it here at ToL it will!!"
And if that's not what your mindset is, then why are you rehashing old ineffective creationist arguments? Shouldn't you be working on coming up with something new?
Rosenritter
New member
This creationist is moving between houses at the moment. I know you love me but we have to be apart for a little longer.
- Status