Announcement

Collapse

Creation Science Rules

This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective.
Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed.
1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team
2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
See more
See less

Bacterial resistance to antibiotics- what is the Creationist explanation?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    It's not really a subject is it. I suppose you could ask how many people could fit on the bridge of the USS Enterprise and that could be a similar kind of 'subject' of investigation.
    You're making no sense... as usual.

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    You believe in evolution 'within kinds' don't you?
    I don't really call it "evolution"; I call it variation. All of those finches whose "evolution" Darwin studied were still finches. That's just variation within the created kind.

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    The evolution does not extend beyond 'kinds' in any way. Therefore the kinds are the limits. You can believe that the kinds are a starting point and still have them as the limits.
    Sure, but the kinds do not magically turn into other kinds. That's just simple science. Cows make baby cows, birds make baby birds, dogs make baby dogs, etc. etc. etc.

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    More alt-facts for religious fundamentalists.
    No, it's a real fact. If you'd like to be the first to disprove it, have at it.

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    Can you tell me what in nature was designed by a supreme intelligence and what wasn't?
    At least SOME things as opposed to your NOTHING (which is just plain idiotic).

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    What are the criteria for it being 'obvious'? Cancers can seem quite cunning in the way they dodge the attention of the immune system. Did the supreme intelligence creatively design cancer?
    The supreme intelligence put a curse on His creation due to man's sin.

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    Do you know how big the largest wooden boat that could float without breaking up was?

    Stuart
    The dimensions are in a book called the Bible. You should go look for yourself.

    Your willful ignorance is tiring.
    All of my ancestors are human.
    Originally posted by Squeaky
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Originally posted by God's Truth
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
      You're making no sense... as usual.
      As you might be aware, the USS Enterprise is a fictional ship. Just like the alleged ark.

      I don't really call it "evolution"; I call it variation. All of those finches whose "evolution" Darwin studied were still finches. That's just variation within the created kind.
      I would return you then to my earlier question about how you think the finches came to be different. How did seven pairs of birds (assuming tanagers are clean animals) become 14 or 15 species, living on the island in the archipelago with the kind of food that matches the beak shape?

      It's interesting that when Darwin visited the Galapagos he was thinking as a creationist and assumed that the different species of these birds represented 'centres of creation'. It was only later when he examined the birds he took back to England that he started thinking in terms of transmutation of species.

      Your model has up to seven pairs of some ancestral finch kind. I don't know what modern species you would put within the 'kind' of finches, since Darwin's finches are actually from the family of tanagers, and are not related to true finches very closely. So my questions are, how did the limited variation contained in 14 birds get expressed as at least 14 different species (but possibly many more), and why are these birds only found in the Galapagos Islands?

      Sure, but the kinds do not magically turn into other kinds. That's just simple science. Cows make baby cows, birds make baby birds, dogs make baby dogs, etc. etc. etc.
      If you use simple science you get a wrong answer.

      No, it's a real fact. If you'd like to be the first to disprove it, have at it.
      You claimed this: It has been proven time and again that chemical do NOT come to life by natural processes.
      It's not my job to demonstrate anything regarding your claim. Since you asserted it without supporting evidence or argument, I will just dismiss it without supporting evidence or argument.

      At least SOME things as opposed to your NOTHING (which is just plain idiotic).
      Can you tell me what in nature was designed by a supreme intelligence and what wasn't?

      The supreme intelligence put a curse on His creation due to man's sin.
      It's up to you to believe in a vindictive god. But you made this claim: We, on the other hand, see the obvious creative design in nature and therefore INFER that there was a supreme intelligence involved. That is a FAR more scientific and logical conclusion.

      What tells you that natural has creative design in it? How do you tell the difference between what was designed and what was not designed?

      The dimensions are in a book called the Bible. You should go look for yourself.
      The largest wooden boat known to have been made is the New England schooner Wyoming. Depending on what you think a cubit is, the Wyoming was of similar size, or perhaps slightly smaller than the dimensions of the ark given in Genesis. The Wyoming did serve as a merchant vessel for a number of years, but it sank in heavy seas with the loss of all lives. It managed to last as long as it did because it had a large amount of iron bracing inside, and pumps that worked constantly to remove the water that leaked in between the constantly twisting and buckling planks. In the end, and despite the bracing and pumping, the planks twisted and buckled and let in the water that sank her.

      I didn't see a mention of iron bracing or pumps in Genesis. Did you?

      Your willful ignorance is tiring.
      You poor thing.

      Stuart

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
        As you might be aware, the USS Enterprise is a fictional ship. Just like the alleged ark.
        The ark is real. Your "world" is imaginary.

        Originally posted by Stuu View Post
        I would return you then to my earlier question about how you think the finches came to be different. How did seven pairs of birds (assuming tanagers are clean animals) become 14 or 15 species, living on the island in the archipelago with the kind of food that matches the beak shape?
        They didn't "become" different in the sense that you're thinking. They always had the genes for all types of beaks.

        Originally posted by Stuu View Post
        It's interesting that when Darwin visited the Galapagos he was thinking as a creationist and assumed that the different species of these birds represented 'centres of creation'. It was only later when he examined the birds he took back to England that he started thinking in terms of transmutation of species.
        Darwin was wrong about so many things. It's telling that you cling to him.

        Originally posted by Stuu View Post
        Your model has up to seven pairs of some ancestral finch kind. I don't know what modern species you would put within the 'kind' of finches, since Darwin's finches are actually from the family of tanagers, and are not related to true finches very closely. So my questions are, how did the limited variation contained in 14 birds get expressed as at least 14 different species (but possibly many more), and why are these birds only found in the Galapagos Islands?
        What is the problem? Learn about genetics.

        Originally posted by Stuu View Post
        If you use simple science you get a wrong answer.


        If you use make believe you get a wrong answer.

        Originally posted by Stuu View Post
        You claimed this: It has been proven time and again that chemical do NOT come to life by natural processes.
        It's not my job to demonstrate anything regarding your claim. Since you asserted it without supporting evidence or argument, I will just dismiss it without supporting evidence or argument.
        It's a well documented fact. Please do you own research instead of just believing in magic.

        Originally posted by Stuu View Post
        Can you tell me what in nature was designed by a supreme intelligence and what wasn't?
        Your fake question does not amuse.

        Here are a one obvious answer: DNA
        All of my ancestors are human.
        Originally posted by Squeaky
        That explains why your an idiot.
        Originally posted by God's Truth
        Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
        Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
        (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

        1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
        (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

        Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
          The ark is real. Your "world" is imaginary.
          https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...yes-180950385/

          https://arkencounter.com/animals/how-many/

          So, the Ark could float (at least in theory), and if AiG is anywhere near correct for the number of animals (only 7,000 total), then that solves the weight problem...

          Sounds like we've got a working theory.

          They didn't "become" different in the sense that you're thinking. They always had the genes for all types of beaks.

          * Finches Adapt in 17 Years, Not 2.3 Million: As for Charles Darwin's finches, they're claimed to have taken 2,300,000 years to diversify from an initial species blown onto the Galapagos Islands. Yet individuals from a single finch species on a U.S. Bird Reservation in the Pacific were introduced to a group of small islands 300 miles away and in at most 17 years, like Darwin's finches, they had diversified their beaks, related muscles, and behavior to fill various ecological niches. See also Jean Lightner's review of the Grants' 40 Years.


          https://rsr.org/spetner

          Darwin was wrong about so many things. It's telling that you cling to him.
          https://kgov.com/bel/20181012

          What is the problem? Learn about genetics.



          If you use make believe you get a wrong answer.

          It's a well documented fact. Please do you own research instead of just believing in magic.
          https://kgov.com/bel/20180717

          Your fake question does not amuse.

          Here are a one obvious answer: DNA

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
            The ark is real. Your "world" is imaginary.
            Why would there be an ark when there was never a global flood?

            They didn't "become" different in the sense that you're thinking. They always had the genes for all types of beaks.
            I didn't use the word different.

            How did seven pairs of birds (assuming tanagers are clean animals) become 14 or 15 species, living on the island in the archipelago with the kind of food that matches the beak shape?

            Darwin was wrong about so many things. It's telling that you cling to him.
            You make a strawman argument. I don't cling to anything. If you could disprove evolution by natural selection, or give good corroborating evidence for a global flood I would change my mind. Would you ever change your mind about anything?

            What is the problem? Learn about genetics.
            The problem for your assertion is the mechanism of Mendelian genetics. How does it work to have a handful of birds containing all the genetic information when one bird cannot contain more than two alleles, say for any specific monohybrid trait? Where is all that extra information stored, and how does it get moved into the right place on the correct chromosome, and what event prompts it to be moved there?

            In other words, how did the limited variation contained in 14 birds get expressed as at least 14 different species (but possibly many more)?

            I am asking you for joined-up thinking here.

            It's a well documented fact.
            Can you link to a document?

            Here are a one obvious answer: DNA
            And what is it about DNA that makes it 'obviously' designed?

            Stuart

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
              Why would there be an ark when there was never a global flood?
              Repeating your falsehoods does not make them true.

              Originally posted by Stuu View Post
              I didn't use the word different.

              How did seven pairs of birds (assuming tanagers are clean animals) become 14 or 15 species, living on the island in the archipelago with the kind of food that matches the beak shape?
              I don't know or care. It makes no different to the issue at hand.

              Originally posted by Stuu View Post
              You make a strawman argument. I don't cling to anything. If you could disprove evolution by natural selection, or give good corroborating evidence for a global flood I would change my mind. Would you ever change your mind about anything?
              Evolution by natural selection is a creationist idea.

              I did change my mind, that's why I'm a creationist.

              Originally posted by Stuu View Post
              The problem for your assertion is the mechanism of Mendelian genetics. How does it work to have a handful of birds containing all the genetic information when one bird cannot contain more than two alleles, say for any specific monohybrid trait? Where is all that extra information stored, and how does it get moved into the right place on the correct chromosome, and what event prompts it to be moved there?
              Trying to sound like you know something?

              Originally posted by Stuu View Post
              And what is it about DNA that makes it 'obviously' designed?

              Stuart
              LOL

              This is why it's impossible to discuss science with you.

              https://www.everystudent.com/wires/Godreal.html
              All of my ancestors are human.
              Originally posted by Squeaky
              That explains why your an idiot.
              Originally posted by God's Truth
              Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
              Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
              (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

              1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
              (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

              Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                Repeating your falsehoods does not make them true. I don't know or care. It makes no different to the issue at hand. Evolution by natural selection is a creationist idea. I did change my mind, that's why I'm a creationist. Trying to sound like you know something? LOL
                Your point being what?

                This is why it's impossible to discuss science with you.
                I don't remember you even trying that yet.

                And which of those authorities appeals to you the most?

                Stuart

                Comment

                Working...
                X