Creation vs. Evolution

[Stripe]

So all this argument by people like 6days had no pointed was merely "just a story"? Pull the other one.

Story: Piltdown man was a hoax created and perpetrated for 40 years by Darwinists. It's indicative of their desperation for validity.

There's the point.

I am on subject.

Not even close.

We know why you are desperate to avoid actually dealing with it.

Dealing with what?

Unfortunately, Stripe can't close this thread, since he didn't start it.

I've provided good reason for everything I've spoken on. Darwinists have refused to correct their obviously wrong terminology, categorically use logical fallacies and have avoided discussions of simple physics.

Soon they'll be telling me they're coming to Taiwan again. :idunno:

I don't know all the workings here but have lost a post about the racism of upper class British who invented evolution and it had an invite to discuss "deluge vs uniformitarian 'building'" as a separate thread. I also started the thread! Now both are gone. Any clues?

:mock: Interscanner

 

[marke]

Are you sure about that? Seems like they rejected Jesus pretty hard here. Not calling for hatred back on them.

Luk 23:34 KJV
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

　

There are two types of blasphemy and blasphemers. Ones who know what they are doing because God has clearly revealed to their hearts that Jesus is Lord, and those who blaspheme in ignorance. Paul blasphemed in ignorance and was therefore forgiven (1 Tim. 1:13). The Pharisees in Mark 3 were not ignorant (John 3:2) so their blasphemy was not forgiven. When Jesus calls for forgiveness for the ignorant, He is not talking about those who willfully and knowingly rebel against God after God has clearly revealed Himself to them (Romans 1:17-20), leaving them without excuse.

 

[Rosenritter]

Dear Ross,

I want you to know something very well. False prophets/the devil cannot cause Snow or Rain to fall or to not fall. Satan does not have such a thing in his power. Only GOD can do that!! If that's all that you come away with this, know that is true. Tornadoes too. You will see God spare one house and skip over a church, or vice versa. Just because people get killed in a storm does not mean that God isn't doing it. Certain people must go as follows {see Rev. 14:13KJV}: "Blessed are the dead which {who} die in the Lord from henceforth {hereon}: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors (on Earth); and their works {in Heaven} do follow them."

In other words, God wants certain people to die, to take them off of their works on Earth, and to go to Heaven, where their work in Heaven follow them. Do you understand what I'm saying here. {See Rev. 14:14KKJV}: The vision about the white cloud was about a white tornado they had emanating from Brandenburg, KY which ran through Xenia, OH, and through MI {Michigan}. The vision then continues with another tornado {brown or black} which came afterwards and killed people and even horses. The people killed being pulled from Earth and being relocated to Heaven. Quite a promotion!! Also, it says the tornadoes ran a path of destruction by the space of 1,600 furlongs. The article said it went for 200 miles. Since there are 8 furlongs in one mile, 1,600 furlongs equals 200 miles. This was an astounding vision that I had while I sat there watching the news. It was like that I was carried away in the Spirit and had this great vision happen to me. The Lord revealed it to me, but I must admit, none of you believe me: the guy who makes all of the mistakes. The Bible says 1,600 furlongs and the article said 200 miles. They are equal, if that helps you to believe me better. Will close for now.

Tons Of Love From God Rain Down Upon You!!

Michael

Where is it written that the devil cannot command storms? You are mistaken.

Job 1:12 KJV
And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord .

Job 1:18-19 KJV
While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, Thy sons and thy daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house: [19] And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.

Then when you tell me that people are being spirited to heaven I also know that your revelation is not from God. Jesus and Peter and Paul tell us that the saints are not in heaven but await resurrection.

John 3:13 KJV
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Acts 2:34 KJV
For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

Hebrews 11:35 KJV
Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:

Question: do you think that spirits that are not loyal to God are unable to convert miles to furloughs, or are unable to read Revelation the same way Silent Hunter could if he had a mind to?

All the assurances you are using of it being from God are flawed, and the revelations contradict Jesus.

 

[6days]

The moon recedes according to a differential equation that includes a term that depends on the configuration the continents, halve treating that term as a constant is unjustified, as Brown knows but is being dishonest about. Or incompetent.

Brown made a statement about moon recession?

I think he would agree with you that you can't take modern rates and extrapolate that into unknown conditions in the past. If Brown discusses moon recession, he likely makes it clear he is using modern rates showing how evolutionists must introduce unknowns and hypotheticals into the equation

The beginning conditions for radioactive dating can be known because of the behaviour of the daughter products in the source material. Argon gases out of molten rock, Lead is expelled from zircon crystals. This can be tested in the lab, of any creationists cared to test it. But lab work is for sissies, isn't it?

I'm not shocked you think lab work is for sissies, but lab work is actually for scientists.
Argon is gassed out of molten rock..... elements are diffused from zircons. We see evidence for our young created earth through these observations, and many more. There are many good articles on the topic, but all interpret evidence through their own biased worldview. You can google, or I can provide links to interpretations from geologists on both sides of the issue.

Alternative techniques like studying the half life of DNA, studying radiometric dating ...

All those dating methods are continent on conditions.

Agree!

That (evolutionists) wish to replace reliable physics based methods with flimsy biological assumptions just tells me that you want wriggle room to promote religious ideas over scientific ones. But as you look around the country, you will see that you are losing day by day. Truth wins out, you see.

Agree... if the word I inserted in brackets is there. Evolutionism is a failing religion. Most, if not everything that Darwin taught has been overturned by science. Most, if not everything evolutionists used at the famous Scopes trial, has now been overturned by science. And even in our age, science continues proving evolutionist claims to be false. ( poor design arguments, junk DNA, puesdogenes, outlandish fossil claims, etc etc)

 

[6days]

Please name a text book that was in common use. Or even a textbook that was actually in use in schools

Here is another
ECONOMICS AND CULTURAL CHANGE
by RUSSELL A. DIXON

1938 Pub. MCGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY, INC.
Page 34“...tradition. The earliest known human inhabitant of Europe was the Piltdown man, as he is often called after the place in England where...”

*Page 62 “...our earliest ancestors as mighty hunters has no basis in fact. With only the coup de poing and a few other crude weapons, Piltdown and Heidelberg man relied more upon brute force of numbers than upon skillful techniques. Such large and dangerous animals...”

Piltdown was a fraud...yet *he was a mighty hunting Englishman. Evolutionism ....stories based *on a false belief.

 

[Rosenritter]

I'm still confused, some guy falsifies research to further his career. Scientists (not creationists) subsequently disprove his forgery. Therefore..... What?

Some really old textbooks make a mention of the forgery. Therefore... What? Most textbooks have many wrong or outdated details in them (or at least they do in my specialty)

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

Notice the dishonest slip. "Scientists not creationists."

 

[chair]

What is the creationist argument?
"Since there once was a hoax, and it was accepted for a while before being exposed, therefore..."
1. All evolutionary science is wrong, or at least suspect, irrespective of whether they are based on the specific hoax
2. All biological science is wrong, or at least suspect
3. All science is wrong, or at least suspect

Which of these options is it? And what is the logic behind rejecting an entire field of science because of a single hoax?

 

[Rosenritter]

What is the creationist argument?
"Since there once was a hoax, and it was accepted for a while before being exposed, therefore..."
1. All evolutionary science is wrong, or at least suspect, irrespective of whether they are based on the specific hoax
2. All biological science is wrong, or at least suspect
3. All science is wrong, or at least suspect

Which of these options is it? And what is the logic behind rejecting an entire field of science because of a single hoax?

None of the above. That is a straw man argument. I myself would answer the widespread application of the hoax shows that there is considerable energy and investment willing to back the continuing hoax called "evolution science", and also evidence of the inherent bias of those who promote the papers and textbooks. Creation and young earth evidence gets buried, hoaxes are broadcast and printed as fact.

It's not that there's one hoax, you are swarming in them. Some are just so obvious that even the evolutionists are forced to admit them after they've done their job of forty years of brainwashing.

 

[chair]

None of the above. That is a straw man argument. I myself would answer the widespread application of the hoax shows that there is considerable energy and investment willing to back the continuing hoax called "evolution science", and also evidence of the inherent bias of those who promote the papers and textbooks. Creation and young earth evidence gets buried, hoaxes are broadcast and printed as fact.

It's not that there's one hoax, you are swarming in them. Some are just so obvious that even the evolutionists are forced to admit them after they've done their job of forty years of brainwashing.

OK. None of the above- but rather a conspiracy to keep evolutionary theory alive despite massive evidence that it is wrong. Is that more accurate?

 

[gcthomas]

Here is another
ECONOMICS AND CULTURAL CHANGE
by RUSSELL A. DIXON

1938 Pub. MCGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY, INC.
Page 34“...tradition. The earliest known human inhabitant of Europe was the Piltdown man, as he is often called after the place in England where...”

*Page 62 “...our earliest ancestors as mighty hunters has no basis in fact. With only the coup de poing and a few other crude weapons, Piltdown and Heidelberg man relied more upon brute force of numbers than upon skillful techniques. Such large and dangerous animals...”

Piltdown was a fraud...yet *he was a mighty hunting Englishman. Evolutionism ....stories based *on a false belief.

So you found a social science book that mentions piltdown man alongside others, to place them in context. You claimed that Piltdown was used as evidence for evolution, but evolution doesn't seem to have been mentioned here. And it's not even A SCIENCE textbook.

c'mon on 6d. If you're resorting to nonscience books already, then the supply must be a little short to claim 'widespread' reliance.

 

[Stripe]

What is the creationist argument?

The Earth-moon system cannot be as old as Darwinists claim.

 

[chair]

The Earth-moon system cannot be as old as Darwinists claim.

Stripe- who are these "Darwinists"? I presume that the Earth-Moon system is studied by astrophysicists, not biologists.

 

[Tyrathca]

The Earth-moon system cannot be as old as Darwinists claim.

Based on a guy with a formula that gives the answers you want but no evidence the formula represents reality.

Or based on your expert knowledge of orbital mechanics, so great you seen to understand what is and isn't relevant to calculations (eg friction) better than those who do it for a living.

Creationists will do anything to avoid talking about the evidence...

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

No evidence the formula represents reality.

:rotfl:

Please show us why we have to assume the truth of your plate tectonics to adjust known factors to reach an answer you would be comfortable with.

Or based on your expert knowledge of orbital mechanics, so great you seen to understand what is and isn't relevant to calculations (eg friction) better than those who do it for a living.

:yawn:

Creationists will do anything to avoid talking about the evidence.

On the contrary, here it is. :up:

 

[6days]

So you found a social science book that mentions piltdown man alongside others, to place them in context. You claimed that Piltdown was used as evidence for evolution, but evolution doesn't seem to have been mentioned here. And it's not even A SCIENCE textbook.

You are too predictable GC. As others mentioned you attempt to move goal posts while defending fraud and trying to whitewash history. So perhaps we need to once again review your challenge.... then see how the fraud was eagerly accepted and even taught in textbooks as fact. Not only was the fraud believed, but evolutionists then invented complete histories.
Piltdown was taught as fact in science journals....the media.....biology textbooks and more.

GCTHOMAS CHALLENGE: "Please name a text book (That taught Piltdown was real)that was in common use. Or even a textbook that was actually in use in schools"

How about we start with your forgetfulness... Here is an image YOU previously posted from...
College Zoology by George William Hunter, Francis Robert Hunter
1949 - W. B. Saunders Company page 704

Next
An Orientation in Science 1938 (Here we see invented ages and invented relatives)
By Pub. McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc.
P-355...“...500,000 B.C. Second glaciation (Kansan) 600,000 B.C. First interglacial Chellean Heidelberg Piltdown Peking Java 900,000 B.C. First glaciation (Nebraskan) Pre Chellean 1,000,000 B.C. Eolithic...”
And page 359“...with the bones. He is related to the Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus), next...”

Next
The Evolution of Human Behavior In this book
Contributors: Carl J. Warden1932 Pub. The Macmillan Company
Page 122
“...that of Pithecanthropus. The brain of Piltdown man was better developed than that of...”
(Sounds sciency! Man is evolving a bigger brain!! )

Next
Elementary Biology
by Benjamin C. Gruenberg
1919
Pub. Ginn & Company*
Page 494

[/QUOTE]

Next
Elements of Biology
by Ruth A. Dodge
1952 (revision of Smallwood’s Elements of Biology under copyright heading Biology for High Schools)
Pub. Allyn and Bacon
Page 256, 257
(Same images as in Elementary Biology from 33 years earlier)

 

[Rosenritter]

So you found a social science book that mentions piltdown man alongside others, to place them in context. You claimed that Piltdown was used as evidence for evolution, but evolution doesn't seem to have been mentioned here. And it's not even A SCIENCE textbook.

c'mon on 6d. If you're resorting to nonscience books already, then the supply must be a little short to claim 'widespread' reliance.

When [evolution of] "Piltdown man" is used in a social economics textbook, I think that itself is evidence of "widespread" reliance.

 

[Jose Fly]

We undertand why you don't want it discussed.

??????????? Where did you get the idea I don't want it discussed? :idunno:

Again, we all agree it was a deliberate hoax from over 100 years ago. What else is there to discuss about it?

But, it does serve a purpose to examine why so many eagerly believed the fraud. It serves a purpose to expose false beliefs that lead to increased racism. It serves a purpose to examine why textbooks and journals invent history and teach it as fact.

None of that makes any sense. Piltdown Man = racism? And textbooks and journals didn't invent anything; they just wrote about the specimen.

This looks like more of your sleazy mud-slinging. Sad.

Notice I got involved in the discussion only after evolutionists here tried to whitewash history. You might question them why they try provide cover for frauds.

I haven't seen anyone cover for anything. Again, we all agree it was a deliberate fraud. Therefore.........? :idunno:

Haha.... I mention a history of shoddy conclusions; and now you want to justify it with your belief system?

If life on earth is a result of the Biblical creator, we would expect to see evidence of that in genetics, geology, paleontology, biology etc... And we do see how evidence supports the Bible.

I figured you'd dodge the question and just post more of your self-soothing mantras. And sure enough....

 

[Jose Fly]

It's not that there's one hoax, you are swarming in them. Some are just so obvious that even the evolutionists are forced to admit them after they've done their job of forty years of brainwashing.

And again we see the same dishonorable behavior from you.

Funny how for all your rhetoric about this sea of hoaxes, you could only actually demonstrate two. But then, that's the nature of creationism.

 

[Rosenritter]

And again we see the same dishonorable behavior from you.

Funny how for all your rhetoric about this sea of hoaxes, you could only actually demonstrate two. But then, that's the nature of creationism.

You want to start going through a list of all the supposed "human missing links?"

 

[Jose Fly]

You want to start going through a list of all the supposed "human missing links?"

Sure, if this time around you're going to actually discuss the subject. But if you're going to just do what you did last time, i.e., copy and paste from a couple of creationist websites, ignore the replies, and then bail....no thanks.

So it's up to you and whether you can engage honestly or not.