Creation vs. Evolution

[TheDuke]

I like Neil deGrasse Tyson and enjoy some of his shows. However you have to realize.... and he sdmits that he interprets through his belief system of materialism. His religion, atheism, seems to force him into the corner of scientism presenting beliefs in things such as multiverse as if it was true.

Not again......

My dear fellow: what would it take for you to stop pretending science is a religion?

 

[TheDuke]

With age comes wisdom, but sometimes age comes alone

With age comes wisdom, but sometimes age comes alone

Dear TheDuke,

I wouldn't believe it even if it were 'only' 1.0 million being stipulated. Were you there a million years ago to give us a firsthand account? Could any of your scientists be an eye witness? They like to use fantastic numbers so no one will try to argue with them.

Michael
​

The purpose of my note was to remind you of the ludicrous claim theists make about the merit of your book and to contrast it with the realities of interdenominational disputes, not to convince you personally

Nonetheless it seems your pitiful reply gives me yet another opportunity to highlight the shortcomings of your position.


1) "They like to use fantastic numbers so no one will try to argue with them"

from this statement alone, I can tell how little science education you have received and how ignorant you are about how science works. It's really a shame, probably not your fault, so here goes for nothing:

Science is the search for knowledge, one cannot find any, if there are presupposed conclusions in the way. So real scientists look into nature for truth, without any premature results until the data is in. The data, results, conclusions and implications are meticulously documented and shared, specifically for the purpose of others cross-examining them and arguing. That's how you know your work is correct - when your competitors can't find any mistakes in it. The numbers appear fantastic to you due to your personal incredulity and lack of understanding, oh, and naturally because they indicate your precious book is moot.

PS: The reason creationists must resort to anti-science is because they have failed miserably trying to argue against it.



2) "Were you there" [in heavy Aussie accent]

Were you? So how can we know what happened if we didn't see it?
It's called "EVIDENCE"

Now I shall repeat myself for the 1000th time: Until we know your book is what you claim it is, we cannot treat it in any other way than a regular book (i.e. written by people; with an agenda, I might add)

Do you have any reason to say it's a "firsthand account" other than wishful thinking?

 

[Cross Reference]

I'm not convinced of a creator nor am I convinced that you have much grasp of the facts if you think a 20 pixel camera is impressive, while I have no idea what you are referring to by "our balls" :idunno:

What facts? Facts beyond common sense? There are none.

Though it should have read "our eye balls" [my bad for dropping words] I firmly believe you have every good idea of what I otherwise meant. Afterall you are a very intelligent person who relies on facts to make an argument.

 

[alwight]

What facts? Facts beyond common sense? There are none.

Though it should have read "our eye balls" [my bad for dropping words] I firmly believe you have every good idea of what I otherwise meant. Afterall you are a very intelligent person who relies on facts to make an argument.

20 "megapixels" was perhaps what you really meant? I might have guessed that you were referring to our eyes but I figured that pixels don't really apply to them.
Science attempts to rigorously determine the true facts and then make rational conclusions. I don't agree that a creator can be concluded from these facts, but otoh I don't see a creator as being ruled out either.
Do you think an Intelligent Creator/Designer is indicated and is the universe young or old?
My argument is not against a possible creator using Darwinian evolution as the method, but that a literal YEC version of Genesis cannot be true.

 

[6days]

Natural selection has kept (the appendix) at about the size it is but it is nevertheless a remnant from a time when our distant ancestors had a different diet.

Once upon a time in a land far far awy...?? 'Just so' stories, are only stories.*

In a sense though the appendix actually is useless because we can all live very well without it. If some people pronounced it "Useless" before then that doesn't negate anything about Darwinian evolution

The point was that evolutionists argued that the useless appendix was evidence of evolution. Then science discovered our appendix serves some important functions, so now evolutionists argue a useful appendix is evidence of evolution. And, as knowlege expands the 'just so' stories keep changing. We now know the appendix serves different functions in different creatures; *so now the story tellers are saying this is evidence that the appendix has evolved independently more than 30 times.*

Because common ancestry is a belief, and not science.....the usefulness of the appendix is actually immaterial. Evolutionism is a non-falsifiable belief system that can explain away contradictory evidence.*

[Quuote=6days]
Thats one example of science showing evolutionist arguments to poorly designed...there are many others such as the 'poorly designed' vertebrate eye.....Lucy.....psuedogenes.....Neandertals.....j unk DNA......etc

Of course you being a YEC need to cling onto any perceived changes of opinion over time. [/quote]
Ha.... its much more than changed opinions because everyone does that.
Example:
Many evolutionists in the past argued our eyes were arranged in a way that no intelligent person would ever use....that it was a sloppy design. However science has proven the arguments false. The evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins didn't understand the ingenious design of the fibre optic like *mueller cells. Some opthamologists have used words such as "optimal" design.

So.....don't you think that if a sloppy design is evidence against the Creator, that an optimal design is evidence for our Creator?

Do you think that if an evolutionist argues that 98% of our DNA is non functional and is evidence of common ancestry; and, if science *showed 98% actually is functional.....that that now is evidence against common ancestry?

But these are little more than side issues whereby the overall argument remains absolutely solid ....

They are 'side issues' because the evidence didnt really matter. It comes down to telling a story in a way that fits the beliefs.

All the evidence remains totally compatible with common descent and imo will always remain so, even if new conclusions come along with greater knowledge.

Very good! New evidence doesnt really matter to evolutionists. BTW.... Biblical creation is also a belief system in which " all the evidence remains totally compatible".*

Humans are typically saddled with back pain because our posture puts pressure on a backbone more suited to having our bodyweight spread over all four limbs not just two.

Or, humans are saddled with back pain because thousands of years of mutations have corrupted an originally good design.

*There is no selective pressure for that to change because humans are reasonable able to cope and to reproduce as it is albeit less than ideal.

Uh-huh ... so we are evolving into knuckle walkers? *

The best and most scientific explanation that fits the evidence is that in the beginning God created...

 

[6days]

My dear fellow: what would it take for you to stop pretending science is a religion?

What would it take for you to stop pretending your religion is science?
I mentioned that belief in multiverse as an example. That is not science... if you believe in that it is science fiction

 

[Jose Fly]

6days, all you're doing is showing that you will continue to repeat your talking points, regardless of how wrong they are.

IOW, for you loyalty to your beliefs trumps accuracy.

 

[alwight]

Once upon a time in a land far far awy...?? 'Just so' stories, are only stories.*

It makes a whole lot more sense than the talking snake you find so appealing 6days.

The point was that evolutionists argued that the useless appendix was evidence of evolution.

It still is.

Then science discovered our appendix serves some important functions, so now evolutionists argue a useful appendix is evidence of evolution. And, as knowlege expands the 'just so' stories keep changing. We now know the appendix serves different functions in different creatures; *so now the story tellers are saying this is evidence that the appendix has evolved independently more than 30 times.

I don't know about the last bit but please cite your source if you wish. I would argue that the vestigial appendix evolved a new secondary usage simply as it happened to be conveniently available, but since we don't actually need it and a great many people would have been rather better off for not having it in the first place, then I can choose to conclude that it would indeed be very poor design and indeed a liability more than a benefit.

Because common ancestry is a belief, and not science.....the usefulness of the appendix is actually immaterial. Evolutionism is a non-falsifiable belief system that can explain away contradictory evidence.

Common descent is a scientific conclusion supported by all kinds of evidence. Just find a bunny in the pre-Cambrian and your nemesis is falsified 6days and goes away.

Ha.... its much more than changed opinions because everyone does that.
Example:
Many evolutionists in the past argued our eyes were arranged in a way that no intelligent person would ever use....that it was a sloppy design. However science has proven the arguments false. The evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins didn't understand the ingenious design of the fibre optic like *mueller cells. Some opthamologists have used words such as "optimal" design.

Creationist nonsense and half truths. No intelligent designer worth his salt would ever design a camera with the wiring in the way of the optics. Admittedly evolution which imo happened to evolve our eyes so that we would now think of as back to front, has produced some clever ways to work around the problem, but clearly having a built-in blind spot in both eyes does not impress me of a designer who took pride in his work.
Richard Dawkins actually explains very well how and why our type of eyes evolved from light sensitive skin that happened to have nerve endings uppermost and continued to just evolve that way because it nevertheless worked quite well.

So.....don't you think that if a sloppy design is evidence against the Creator, that an optimal design is evidence for our Creator?

Natural selection tends not to waste resources on optimisation, it typically only produces that which is sufficient. What do you think is optimal?

Do you think that if an evolutionist argues that 98% of our DNA is non functional and is evidence of common ancestry; and, if science *showed 98% actually is functional.....that that now is evidence against common ancestry?

I'm not an "evolutionist" I am simply someone who happens to find Darwinian evolution rather more convincing than spontaneous creation by magical means only some 6000 years ago, a talking snake, people who lived for 900 years or more and a God who cursed all of future humanity because some guy He made one day called Adam ate a fruit. lain:

They are 'side issues' because the evidence didnt really matter. It comes down to telling a story in a way that fits the beliefs.

Science isn't a religion, it doesn't make conclusions and stick with them regardless of new evidence and facts, it adapts and corrects itself accordingly.

Very good! New evidence doesnt really matter to evolutionists. BTW.... Biblical creation is also a belief system in which " all the evidence remains totally compatible".*

Since I'm not an "evolutionist" I won't presume to know what matters to them.

Or, humans are saddled with back pain because thousands of years of mutations have corrupted an originally good design.


Uh-huh ... so we are evolving into knuckle walkers? *

The best and most scientific explanation that fits the evidence is that in the beginning God created...

Original Sin (Fall) is simply rather poor apologetics to explain away why a supposed perfect God has apparently created imperfection at all levels. It's hogwash but perhaps the best they could come up with it seems. :think:

 

[iouae]

Original Sin (Fall) is simply rather poor apologetics to explain away why a supposed perfect God has apparently created imperfection at all levels. It's hogwash but perhaps the best they could come up with it seems. :think:

I agree with you here. This idea is false theology. In Jurassic Park it was as dog-eat-dog there as it is here today, possibly a lot more so.

But consider this...

The world IS PERFECT today for doing what it is supposed to do, which is offer folks a chance to come to God. A perfect world where there was no suffering would have zero incentive for one to come to God. Why would you come to God if it already was perfect? God offers perfection in the hereafter, and that has to be accepted as a matter of faith.

This shows me that faith will be required of us forever. In one billion years time, God might tell his now spirit saint to do something. That saint might think "this an odd request/command" but I will do it anyhow. This tells me that God has things planned for all eternity which will blow/expand our minds.

Why must man suffer? Why do folks like to say "a good God would never allow this suffering". Because if we believers and others got everything we asked for, there would be no faith involved.

God is a lot tougher than even we give Him credit for. Its tough love.
I am still struggling how God could allow His own beloved Son to die so horribly, and having all power, stand by and watch. But it all works out for the good. I just go with the program, especially since its the only program there is.

 

[6days]

The point was that evolutionists argued that the useless appendix was evidence of evolution.

It still is.

You are 30 years behind the times if you argue the useless appendix is evidence of evolution. Now evolutionists argue that the USEFULappendix suppotts their case.

Then science discovered our appendix serves some important functions, so now evolutionists argue a useful appendix is evidence of evolution. And, as knowlege expands the 'just so' stories keep changing. We now know the appendix serves different functions in different creatures; *so now the story tellers are saying this is evidence that the appendix has evolved independently more than 30 times.

I don't know about the last bit but please cite your source if you wish.

I dont have internet as i type this (will send when i do).... but google appendix evolved 32 times. *If that doesn't bring it up, i can link you later.*

*I would argue that the vestigial appendix evolved a new secondary usage simply as it happened to be conveniently available, but since we don't actually need it and a great many people would have been rather better off for not having it in the first place, then I can choose to conclude that it would indeed be very poor design and indeed a liability more than a benefit.

And I would argue that vestigial is based on a false belief system. The evidence is that our appendix performs unique functions and is evidence of the Biblical creation model. Although our appendix may have reduced function since creation, it has likely saved countless millions of lives.*

Because common ancestry is a belief, and not science.....the usefulness of the appendix is actually immaterial. Evolutionism is a non-falsifiable belief system that can explain away contradictory evidence.

Common descent is a scientific conclusion supported by all kinds of evidence. Just find a bunny in the pre-Cambrian

Intelligent Design is a scientific conclusion supported by " all kinds of evidence" ( both sides have the same evidence)

Finding a bunny in the Cambrian causes evolutionists to rely on magical explanations such as "it appeared in the geological blink of an eye" (google it)

BTW.... Last i checked, bunnies don't hang out with jellyfish and trilobites.

 

[6days]

Quote=alwight]

Do you think that if an evolutionist argues that 98% of our DNA is non functional and is evidence of common ancestry; and, if science *showed 98% actually is functional.....that that now is evidence against common ancestry?

I'm not an "evolutionist" I am simply someone who happens to find Darwinian evolution rather more convincing than spontaneous creation by magical means only some 6000 years ago, a talking snake, people who lived for 900 years or more and a God who cursed all of future humanity because some guy He made one day called Adam ate a fruit. [/quote]

That fine..... but you avoided answering the question. "Do you think that if an evolutionist argues that 98% of our DNA is non functional and is evidence of common ancestry; and, if science showed 98% actually is functional.....that that now is evidence against common ancestry?"

Science isn't a religion, it doesn't make conclusions and stick with them regardless of new evidence and facts,*it adapts and corrects itself accordingly.

Exactly! And that is why common ancestry beliefs are not science. New evidence / contradictory evidence doesn't change the belief.*

Original Sin (Fall) is simply rather poor apologetics to explain away why a supposed perfect God has apparently created imperfection at all levels.

I think its called a strawman fallacy when you misrepresent a position so that you can then beat the strawman / the shadow of the real position.

God created a perfect creation. For the purpose of love, man had to be given the choice or the freedom to sin. When man chose to sin, God had to be just and imposed the penalty of a corrupted creation. We now have death, pain and sufferring which was not part of the original creation.*

Because of sin, we are eternally seperated from a Holy God who still wants a love relationship with us. He provided a mediator....Himself taking our punishment at the cross. Christians look forward to a future where there is no pain, sufferring and death... a time without tears.*

Amazing love....how can it be that thou my God would die for me!

 

[MichaelCadry]

I took off all Michael's unusual formatting to read it.

Dear alwight,

It is really quite simple. I'm surprised that you all have trouble with it. Just begin typing after I have typed everything, after all of the coding. It's simple. You don't take off any of my unusual formatting. It's a breeze.

Buena suerte }{Good Luck, in Spanish},

Michael

 

[iouae]

I think Christians have missed a great opportunity, confusing evolution as being the same as an old earth.

I believe in an old earth and multiple creations after multiple mass extinctions. And the fossil evidence totally supports this Creationist view.

For instance at the KT boundary, where dinosaurs suddenly go extinct and mammals suddenly appear. Evolution has no answer for this. In lower strata, all dinosaurs. Next strata, all mammals. To me this demonstrates a Creation event. Thus I believe all empirical evidence supports Creationism far more than evolution. But we entrenched ourselves in the young earth 6000 years only idea and missed a huge opportunity to PROVE the existence of God to palaeontologists and science in general. If nobody can find missing links connecting Cretaceous and Tertiiary animals, THERE HAS TO BE A GOD.

 

[MichaelCadry]

I don't actually KNOW that these things didn't happen but truly miraculous events simply don't seem to happen these days and I very much suspect that they never have Michael. Exactly how do you think you KNOW?

Dear alwight,

You are forgetting that I've had more than 3 visits from angels, two visits from the Lord God, and a number of visions, and visits by the Holy Ghost. God has already proven Himself to me because I believed in Him first. I almost died during the first visit from Him. I was having a heart attack and didn't know where to turn, and I thought to call a doctor, but figured he would not be able to get to my house in time. Then I thought to call in my mother, but figured what could she do to help me. Finally, I had no where else to turn and I prayed to God to please let me live so I could tell my family and friends about all that was happening to me. Suddenly, a commanding, loud, clear voice filled the room and said, "Calm yourself, and think of those you love." I knew it was from the Lord and I figured I'd best obey Him, in order to live. That is all I will say of the matter. It is too lengthy to explain the whole thing to you. Like I said, read it in my book that is FREE online.

You don't win arguments by asserting what you think you know Michael, you need something substantive and evidential that other people can check out too. Scientists can't debate about what you think you know, and you haven't won any argument if they don't bother to try.

I do have newspaper articles, a copy of a letter that I wrote to a New York Daily News reporter saying that God would send 7 inches of snow upon his Daily News Bldg. within 48 hours of his receiving my letter telling him so, so that he would know God was really with me. Well, it happened, and he was petrified. I have an eyewitness of that account also, from the girl I was living with at the time. The newspaper reporter asked me what did I want and I told him, a 3-hour interview. He gladly consented. I have copies of my letter to him and also a copy of the snow report.

Don't worry about me Michael, deal with this life in your own way using whatever helps you. If I am anything like the person you think I am then your God would know it too. I really wouldn't want to spend eternity with a hard hearted god who didn't use compassion, common sense and rationality, who condemned people eternally for not dogmatically conforming to one specific human religious doctrine during this one brief lifetime.

Alwight, He won't just measure you on one lifetime, but instead many. You don't know what is going on behind the scenes. If you don't believe in God and Jesus this time around, maybe you will in the next lifetime. It does say in the Bible "and the rest of the dead shall not 'live AGAIN' until the thousand years were fulfilled." See Rev. 20:5. So there is another chance at it all. But it will be harder then. But if that's what you wish, then by all means consider not believing in Him now and risk your last chance later. So you see, He is not just judging you on one lifetime at all. You just think He is. You are wrong.

I'm not convinced that Jesus was anything more than a man Michael, but he would be very welcome to visit me anytime at all should I be wrong, but until then I'll simply assume that I'm not.

Well, Al, simply assume that you are wrong instead of right and you will be halfway there. Jesus was more than a mere man. He is your Savior and you'll find that out sooner or later. I've been praying to God and Jesus for you, and if you aren't saved now, hopefully you will be saved later. But it is cutting it close when you wait for the very LAST chance to believe in Him. Jesus could do miracles that you nor any other man could do, so He was more than a mere man. You just don't KNOW that YET. There is so much going on behind your back, that you would not believe it Al. There's Christians who don't know, so should I be surprised that you don't know either? Don't fret so. If you don't want to go to Heaven now, perhaps you will get the chance to later. I'm not trying to rush you. I'm just saying is that I surely wouldn't be the one who waits until the last minute. There is some reason I am drawn to help you, and I suppose that God has His Eye on you to save you. When that will be is His decision. I do know that He loves you. Go figure. You just hang in there, Al. Things will make sense in the long run.

Cheerio, Mate!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Michael,

I'm glad you know where you stand, now allow me to spell out for you why I am so confident about my position.

We all are subject to our emotions, Michael, many times it may even be a reasonable approach to trust them. But rationality is all about trusting nothing but hard evidence. I'm not relying on faith - you do! That's why people like me are rational and people like you are superstitious.

I don't care how many of "us" are out there, as long as I have no reason to, I can't bring myself to believe in fairies.

Bear in mind, though, that the fastest growing demographic in the industrialized world are atheists, and outside the US we are already a clear majority. Your kind is mostly prevalent where education is nonexistent (I wonder if that also explains the southern states????)

Cheers

Dear TheDuke,

I am not superstitious, and I am rational. Anything other than that is YOUR belief, not mine. You will not change your beliefs because of anything I have to say. I can already tell that. That's why I am not drawn to help you. You are helpless for now. Maybe someday that will change. As far as you becoming the clear majority, you're nuts!! By the way, I was born in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. Northern U.S.A.

Michael

 

[6days]

No intelligent designer worth his salt would ever design a camera with the wiring in the way of the optics.

At one time evolutionists thought that was a good argument but science has proved that wrong.

Opthamologist Dr. H S Hamilton:"instead of being a great disadvantage, or a “curse” or being incorrectly constructed, the inverted retina is a tremendous advance in function and design compared with the simple and less complicated verted arrangement. One problem amongst many, for evolutionists, is to explain how this abrupt major retinal transformation from the verted type in invertebrates to the inverted vertebrate model came about as nothing in paleontology offers any support."

Admittedly evolution which imo happened to evolve our eyes so that we would now think of as back to front, has produced some clever ways to work around the problem, but clearly[ having a built-in blind spot[ in both eyes does not impress me of a designer who took pride in his work.

You clearly have a blind spot refusing to follow the evidence where it leads...to our Creator.*

Yes our eyes have been "cleverly" designed. Consider.....Natalie Angier, NY Times Science "The basic building blocks of human eyesight turn out to be practically perfect. Scientists have learned that the fundamental units of vision, the photoreceptor cells that carpet the retinal tissue of the eye and respond to light, are not just good or great or phabulous at their job. They are not merely exceptionally impressive by the standards of biology, with whatever slop and wiggle room the animate category implies. Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period. Each one is designed to detect and respond to single photons of light -- the smallest possible packages in which light comes wrapped."

Consider newer research has discovered that our retina has a neurological feedback system improving contrast and sharpening edges without sacrificing shadow detail."PLoS Biology May 2011 A positive feedback synapse from retinal horizontal cells to cone photoreceptors. (S.L.Jackman). There is lots of other amazing research in last few years which shows evolution to be an illogical conclusion.

Richard Dawkins actually explains very well how and why our type of eyes evolved from light sensitive skin that happened to have nerve endings uppermost and continued to just evolve that way because it nevertheless worked quite well.*

Dawkins explanation seems to be for the gullible. He starts with a 'simple' light sensitive cell and totally ignores the complexity of it. He then makes a pattern of simple to complex eyes and he seems to be convinced that his arrangement is evidence. And again he ignores the leaps of sophistication and additional complex information in each 'step'. *

Evolutionists now admit that complex sophisticated vision systems existed from what they consider to be over 500 million years ago. Example: "Very few modern animals, particularly arthropods, have eyes as sophisticated as this,”https://www.newscientist.com/article...-amazing-eyes/


Also...Opthamologists are medically qualified and have made statements, based on current research. Dawkins hower is not an expert on the eye, and keeps repeating his discredited arguments, which science has proven wrong. Ophthalmologists have said 'anyone who argues the eye was built backwards lacks knowledge'.

[/QUOTE=6days]

So.....don't you think that if a sloppy design is evidence against the Creator, that an optimal design is evidence for our Creator?

Natural selection tends not to waste resources on optimisation, it typically only produces that which is sufficient.[/QUOTE]

Evolutionists often think natral selection is lime some creative fairy. Natural selection *can only eliminate ....it can't produce anything. And it is mostly impotent at even eliminating genetic mistakes.*


But you avoided the question..don't you think that if a sloppy design is evidence against the Creator, that an optimal design is evidence for our Creator?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear alwight,

You are forgetting that I've had more than 3 visits from angels, two visits from the Lord God, and a number of visions, and visits by the Holy Ghost. God has already proven Himself to me because I believed in Him first. I almost died during the first visit from Him. I was having a heart attack and didn't know where to turn, and I thought to call a doctor, but figured he would not be able to get to my house in time. Then I thought to call in my mother, but figured what could she do to help me. Finally, I had no where else to turn and I prayed to God to please let me live so I could tell my family and friends about all that was happening to me. Suddenly, a commanding, loud, clear voice filled the room and said, "Calm yourself, and think of those you love." I knew it was from the Lord and I figured I'd best obey Him, in order to live. That is all I will say of the matter. It is too lengthy to explain the whole thing to you. Like I said, read it in my book that is FREE online.



I do have newspaper articles, a copy of a letter that I wrote to a New York Daily News reporter saying that God would send 7 inches of snow upon his Daily News Bldg. within 48 hours of his receiving my letter telling him so, so that he would know God was really with me. Well, it happened, and he was petrified. I have an eyewitness of that account also, from the girl I was living with at the time. The newspaper reporter asked me what did I want and I told him, a 3-hour interview. He gladly consented. I have copies of my letter to him and also a copy of the snow report.



Alwight, He won't just measure you on one lifetime, but instead many. You don't know what is going on behind the scenes. If you don't believe in God and Jesus this time around, maybe you will in the next lifetime. It does say in the Bible "and the rest of the dead shall not 'live AGAIN' until the thousand years were fulfilled." See Rev. 20:5. So there is another chance at it all. But it will be harder then. But if that's what you wish, then by all means consider not believing in Him now and risk your last chance later. So you see, He is not just judging you on one lifetime at all. You just think He is. You are wrong.



Well, Al, simply assume that you are wrong instead of right and you will be halfway there. Jesus was more than a mere man. He is your Savior and you'll find that out sooner or later. I've been praying to God and Jesus for you, and if you aren't saved now, hopefully you will be saved later. But it is cutting it close when you wait for the very LAST chance to believe in Him. Jesus could do miracles that you nor any other man could do, so He was more than a mere man. You just don't KNOW that YET. There is so much going on behind your back, that you would not believe it Al. There's Christians who don't know, so should I be surprised that you don't know either? Don't fret so. If you don't want to go to Heaven now, perhaps you will get the chance to later. I'm not trying to rush you. I'm just saying is that I surely wouldn't be the one who waits until the last minute. There is some reason I am drawn to help you, and I suppose that God has His Eye on you to save you. When that will be is His decision. I do know that He loves you. Go figure. You just hang in there, Al. Things will make sense in the long run.

Cheerio, Mate!!

Michael

Dear alwight,

I might as well tell you that the first angel that ever visited me said, "Fear God, and give Him glory, for the 'hour' of His judgement is upon all of the Earth, and worship Him Who made the Earth and Heaven, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." I guess I should let you know that was what the first angel said to me. You have no idea what my life has been like. You'd be flabberghasted. I wish we were next-door neighbors so that I could spend more close important time with you and all of the things that have happened to me. Then, I think you'd believe me. Well, will get going for now. Somebody loves you!! Who could it be now? God and Jesus, and me!!

Michael

 

[6days]

For instance at the KT boundary, where dinosaurs suddenly go extinct and mammals suddenly appear. ...

Not really..... we have them all together. There are dinosaur remains in mammal stomachs and birds found in dino tummies.

Use google... or the Bible.

 

[Hedshaker]

Science is the search for knowledge, one cannot find any, if there are presupposed conclusions in the way. So real scientists look into nature for truth, without any premature results until the data is in. The data, results, conclusions and implications are meticulously documented and shared, specifically for the purpose of others cross-examining them and arguing. That's how you know your work is correct - when your competitors can't find any mistakes in it. The numbers appear fantastic to you due to your personal incredulity and lack of understanding, oh, and naturally because they indicate your precious book is moot.

And lets not forget peer review? In science, if you're proven wrong then your just wrong and that's that. In religion and theology they just argue with each other for another couple of thousand years..... and then some

PS: The reason creationists must resort to anti-science is because they have failed miserably trying to argue against it.

Creationists, and fundamentalists in general, have profound, cherished beliefs that are far more important to them than evidence, reality, truth. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny

:deadhorse:

 

[Hedshaker]

My argument is not against a possible creator using Darwinian evolution as the method, but that a literal YEC version of Genesis cannot be true.

Yeah, that notion was popular with The Barbarian. The trouble I see with it is that it goes against the very idea of Evolutionary Theory where things start off very simple and then Evolve in complexity over deep time. If they said God started of as a spiritual tadpole (or some such) and then emerged into what it is now over vast amounts of time they might have a point of sorts.... maybe... or at least have a tiny bit more merit than it does now. It would at least have a stab at explain where the notion came from in the first place.

But no, their God is a super complex entity capable of poofing universes, answering prayers, creating everything from life to logic simply because it just is and always has been. No rhyme or reason. Just is because it's written in some ancient holy book.

Talk about gullibility, eh?