Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rosenritter

New member
Apparently creationist logic goes something like, "If people make images of something, then that something existed".

I guess then leprechauns, fairies, and ogres are real. :rolleyes:
Still looking for faerie fossils. On the other hand, good old fashioned legitimate science has provided us with skeletons of the stegosaurus. Those back plates are unique to that critter.

Aside, I showed that picture to my wife without telling her what it was or why I was asking. She said, "Dinosaur?" while wondering why I am showing her my phone. Not "hippo?"

So my experiment concludes that belief in evolution theory causes bad eyesight.
 

Rosenritter

New member
We missed you Hunter. The conversation was almost threatening to become civil and sensible. Glad to know you are here to save us from that fate.
 

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
We missed you Hunter. The conversation was almost threatening to become civil and sensible. Glad to know you are here to save us from that fate.
You should read your posts from the other side's perspective. You're not exactly cookies and cream.

Instead of your continual ad hominems perhaps you should/could devote a small portion of your responses to actually addressing the issue. Or maybe you might like to try shifting the burden of proof like Cross Reference or even try moving the goal posts like 6days :idunno:
 

Rosenritter

New member
You should read your posts from the other side's perspective. You're not exactly cookies and cream.

Instead of your continual ad hominems perhaps you should/could devote a small portion of your responses to actually addressing the issue. Or maybe you might like to try shifting the burden of proof like Cross Reference or even try moving the goal posts like 6days :idunno:

* "If you put more water on the earth the atmosphere would boil away"
* "Your wife is insane and all of your children too."
* "I held seance with all the dead bible scholars and none of them believed in an inerrant bible"
* "Nothingness spontaneously exploded and that's why we have galaxies and solar systems that orbit in both directions"
* "It's a hippo I swear it's a hippo, hippos have big plates of bone jutting out of their back"

Would you like some more cookies with that cream?
 

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
* "If you put more water on the earth the atmosphere would boil away"
I never made that claim, I just verified Baumgardner's heat calculation.
* "Your wife is insane and all of your children too."
Well, she did hook up with you which does call into question her sanity and I never said that they were your children.
* "I held seance with all the dead bible scholars and none of them believed in an inerrant bible"
This was your ad hominem. I've read ancient, past, and modern bible scholars, none claiming there were/are no textural problems in the ancient manuscripts or the ancient and modern translations. Your "defense" is "evangelical scholars" having a vested interest in "biblical inerrancy", a claim of faith, not fact.
* "Nothingness spontaneously exploded and that's why we have galaxies and solar systems that orbit in both directions"
That's not exactly the "big bang" theory but if you've ever seen an explosion in slow motion you might notice that debris fly off in all directions, all having differing directions of spin.
* "It's a hippo I swear it's a hippo, hippos have big plates of bone jutting out of their back"
This doesn't address why you continue to avoid answering th question, did all the other fantastical creatures shown in other panels exist or not?
Would you like some more cookies with that cream?
... said the person who recently wrote:
The sad part is that it's not about mental faculty, it's about honesty.
and
So my experiment concludes that belief in evolution theory causes bad eyesight.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
 

6days

New member
Well, actually, no, I didn't do that, you did. You basically said, "There are contradictions but there aren't any contradictions that affect doctrine so now show that there are contradictions that affect doctrine". That's classic moving the goalposts.
Here was the actual conversation challenge.....
SilentHunter said:
6days said:
The bible is chock full of contradictions.
Hunter.... don't be so gullible falling for the lists on the atheist sites.
God's Word has no contradictions.
Although translations and copies are not perfect, even they contain no error / contradiction that changes any doctrine.

Hunter... Since you are insistent the Bible contains contradictions, why not pick one . ( not a list) Lets discuss it
 

6days

New member
Creationists think evolution requires instantaneous change. Nothing could be more misunderstood than this about evolution....
Actually.....no.
Evidence in the case of evolution versus creation generally better supports the creation account. However most people do not realize that. Most people have never been taught anything about the creation model. So evidence is always interpreted in light of the only model that they have been taught, the evolution model.

One example of the misunderstanding that most evolutionists have is regarding the ability of animals to quickly adapt to changing environments. Especially in the past, evolutionists thought change and speciation was a slow gradual process taking millions of years. The creationist model calls for the ability to rapidly change and even rapid speciation. Adaptation~ speciation usually happens when natural selection, 'selects' information that already exists in the genome. It is a process identified by a creationist (Edward Blyth) before Charles Darwin popularized the notion. It is a process similar to that of breeding animals... artificial selection. Selection is a process that usually eliminates unwanted information... It does not create new information.

As an example Darwin noted different species of finches in the Galapagos Islands. Evolutionists thought that these species have developed over the course of up to 5,000,000 years. That time frame was not based on science, but on the belief that everything evolved from a common ancestor over the course of millions and millions of years. Real science involving observation has now shown that these different species likely developed over the course of a few hundred years.

But even a few hundred years is a very long time. Speciation can happen over the course of just a few generations.... a matter of several years. Sticklefish have speciated / rapidly adapted in a very short time period.

Another example of rapid speciation (creationist model) comes from a study of guppies in Trinidad. One of the researchers speaking from the evolutionary perspective says " ‘The guppies adapted to their new environment in a mere four years—a rate of change some 10,000 to 10 million times faster than the average rates determined from the fossil record" IE. He says that the actual observed rate does not match the evolutionary assumptions of million of years in the fossil record.
science; Predator-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward (Morell)

Rapid changes are bewildering to evolutionists..... but make perfect sense in the creationist model. God created most things with a very polytypic genome ( programmed variation) . They can change and adapt to various situations because of the wide array of info in their DNA.

Other examples of the ability of animals to adapt quickly:
Fruit flies grow longer wings...
... evolutionists are 'alarmed'
New Scientist 165 wrote:
"Flying out of control—alien species can evolve at an alarming rate"


Frogs seemingly 'evolve' in 1 generation...
... Evolutionists are surprised.
Science Daily wrote:
"However, the results show that in many cases, species with eggs and tadpoles placed in water seem to give rise directly to species with direct development, without going through the many seemingly intermediate steps that were previously thought to be necessary "
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0910142632.htm


And the best one showing.....
... Evolutionists are unscientific.
Bird species changes fast but without genetic differences (species-specific DNA markers)...
"Rapid phenotypic evolution during incipient speciation in a continental avian radiation" Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
The researchers suggest that the lack of genetic markers may mean the changes in these birds happened so fast that the genes haven't had a chance to catch up yet!!!!

That's a few of the many examples of adaptation and speciation that support the Biblical model, contradicting the evolutionist model of slow gradual change over millions of years.
 

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
Here was the actual conversation challenge.....
Yeah, and it's STILL a rather large movement of the goalposts since it wasn't in the original claim.
If there are no contradictions in the bible that "changes any doctrine or belief", why there are 30,000+ (and growing) sects of christianity all with differing doctrines and beliefs?
It is well known that there are over 30,000 sects of christianity, each having their own beliefs, doctrines, and tenets, most basing those beliefs on the bible. They can't all be right but they all can be wrong. Can you without question claim your beliefs are "right" and the other 29,999+ are wrong?
 

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
Actually.....no.
Evidence in the case of evolution versus creation generally better supports the creation account. However most people do not realize that. Most people have never been taught anything about the creation model. So evidence is always interpreted in light of the only model that they have been taught, the evolution model.

One example of the misunderstanding that most evolutionists have is regarding the ability of animals to quickly adapt to changing environments. Especially in the past, evolutionists thought change and speciation was a slow gradual process taking millions of years. The creationist model calls for the ability to rapidly change and even rapid speciation. Adaptation~ speciation usually happens when natural selection, 'selects' information that already exists in the genome. It is a process identified by a creationist (Edward Blyth) before Charles Darwin popularized the notion. It is a process similar to that of breeding animals... artificial selection. Selection is a process that usually eliminates unwanted information... It does not create new information.

As an example Darwin noted different species of finches in the Galapagos Islands. Evolutionists thought that these species have developed over the course of up to 5,000,000 years. That time frame was not based on science, but on the belief that everything evolved from a common ancestor over the course of millions and millions of years. Real science involving observation has now shown that these different species likely developed over the course of a few hundred years.

But even a few hundred years is a very long time. Speciation can happen over the course of just a few generations.... a matter of several years. Sticklefish have speciated / rapidly adapted in a very short time period.

Another example of rapid speciation (creationist model) comes from a study of guppies in Trinidad. One of the researchers speaking from the evolutionary perspective says " ‘The guppies adapted to their new environment in a mere four years—a rate of change some 10,000 to 10 million times faster than the average rates determined from the fossil record" IE. He says that the actual observed rate does not match the evolutionary assumptions of million of years in the fossil record.
science; Predator-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward (Morell)

Rapid changes are bewildering to evolutionists..... but make perfect sense in the creationist model. God created most things with a very polytypic genome ( programmed variation) . They can change and adapt to various situations because of the wide array of info in their DNA.

Other examples of the ability of animals to adapt quickly:
Fruit flies grow longer wings...
... evolutionists are 'alarmed'
New Scientist 165 wrote:
"Flying out of control—alien species can evolve at an alarming rate"

Frogs seemingly 'evolve' in 1 generation...
... Evolutionists are surprised.
Science Daily wrote:
"However, the results show that in many cases, species with eggs and tadpoles placed in water seem to give rise directly to species with direct development, without going through the many seemingly intermediate steps that were previously thought to be necessary "
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0910142632.htm

And the best one showing.....
... Evolutionists are unscientific.
Bird species changes fast but without genetic differences (species-specific DNA markers)...
"Rapid phenotypic evolution during incipient speciation in a continental avian radiation" Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
The researchers suggest that the lack of genetic markers may mean the changes in these birds happened so fast that the genes haven't had a chance to catch up yet!!!!

That's a few of the many examples of adaptation and speciation that support the Biblical model, contradicting the evolutionist model of slow gradual change over millions of years.
:blabla:

A book, chapter, and verse from the bible describing the "creation model" and "rapid speciation" would go further than your usual cut-and-paste, or am I expecting too much?
 

6days

New member
:blabla:

A book, chapter, and verse from the bible describing the "creation model" and "rapid speciation" would go further than your usual cut-and-paste, or am I expecting too much?
The creation /flood model is based on the book of Genesis....first 9 chapters.

And....whose material did I copy?

And...for all your bluster about Bible contradictions, you have yet to list one as challenged.
 

Rosenritter

New member
I never made that claim, I just verified Baumgardner's heat calculation.Well, she did hook up with you which does call into question her sanity and I never said that they were your children.This was your ad hominem. I've read ancient, past, and modern bible scholars, none claiming there were/are no textural problems in the ancient manuscripts or the ancient and modern translations. Your "defense" is "evangelical scholars" having a vested interest in "biblical inerrancy", a claim of faith, not fact.That's not exactly the "big bang" theory but if you've ever seen an explosion in slow motion you might notice that debris fly off in all directions, all having differing directions of spin.
This doesn't address why you continue to avoid answering th question, did all the other fantastical creatures shown in other panels exist or not?... said the person who recently wrote:
The sad part is that it's not about mental faculty, it's about honesty.
and
So my experiment concludes that belief in evolution theory causes bad eyesight.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

I don't take you seriously. You would make any asinine outrageous claim to try to pick a fight. You are still trying to do that.

Didn't say you scored all those silliness points I listed, I was listing the overall impression of your argument.

If you like I will adjust that last statement. If it's not bad eyesight then its either dishonesty or stupidity. Hippos don't have tall ridges of back plates.

I was trying to say it in a nicer way. I don't believe you or anyone else here is that stupid, but then again maybe the delusion is that strong that you persuade yourselves.
 

gcthomas

New member
The sad part is that it's not about mental faculty, it's about honesty. You disqualified yourself.

Your main argument seems to rest on a depression in a rock you can sort of fit your foot in, and a whole load of mythological creatures that look a little similar to dinosaurs, and a whole load that don't.

Hardly a slam dunk, it is?
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
The claim is that there are no contradictions in God'sWord.
Unable to defend your claim, you keep trying to move goalposts claiming there are contradictions in people opinions.


Dear 6days,

Don't let him get to you. He likes to goad other people. Do you know what I mean by that? That is his M.O. No matter how much proof that you give him, he will still try to keep an argument going. He likes to argue for the sake of it. I know him like a book. He will do it until he gets out of control and gets banned again. He loves it. Same with DavisBJ. Two peas in a kayak headed for hot waters.

In Jesus Christ, Tons Of Care & Love,

Michael
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Your main argument seems to rest on a depression in a rock you can sort of fit your foot in, and a whole load of mythological creatures that look a little similar to dinosaurs, and a whole load that don't.

Hardly a slam dunk, it is?


Dear gcthomas,

Hey, how are you doing? I'm glad to see you here. I just wanted to tell you that there were dragons for real. I doubt that they were fire-breathing variety, but our Bible mentions them often. It also mentions the unicorn and bullock {steer}, and I'm sure they once existed also. The dragon was ugly and flew, like it's namesake, the dragonfly.

I miss Alwight/Alan! I have been waiting for an email from him. Should get it 2morrow. I hope that he has started his radiation therapy. That chemo he was on is useless and dangerous.

Much Love & Cheerio!!


Michael
 

Cross Reference

New member
Can you explain what you mean by this, please? My physicist understanding of it is that entropy only had to increase in closed systems, which living organisms are not.

Try this to your experience in life:

"Man left to himself will destroy himself".

You, in your evolution envelope, can bank on that to have happened a 'billion years' ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top