Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

6days

New member
Barbarian said:
YEC doctrine of "life ex nihilo" denies what God says. He says that the Earth brought forth living things. They weren't poofed out of nothing.

For when he spoke, the world began! It appeared at his command.Psalm 33:9

Barbarian said:
*

YEC was invented by a SDA "prophetess" in the early 1900s.

Haven't you read the Scriptures?" Jesus replied. "They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.'

Matthew 19:4


Barbarian said:
*He certainly could be deceptive, (appearance of age) if He chose to do that. But He will not be deceptive. So your belief denies a very basic attribute of God. He is truth.

I would think when God presented Eve to Adam and told him 'I just made her from your rib'...that Adam believed God.

Barbarian would have argued that God was being untruthful because she certainly looked more than 5 minutes old.*
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Barbarian observes:
YEC doctrine of "life ex nihilo" denies what God says. He says that the Earth brought forth living things. They weren't poofed out of nothing.

For when he spoke, the world began! It appeared at his command.Psalm 33:9

But as you see, life was not produced from nothing. God says it was made from previous creation. So another reason that YE creationism denies God's word.

Barbarian observes:
YEC was invented by a SDA "prophetess" in the early 1900s.

Haven't you read the Scriptures?" Jesus replied. "They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.'
Matthew 19:4


If you had read the Scriptures, you would know that God says what was there at the beginning. Gen. 1:1

Male and female were not there. Jesus is speaking of the beginning of our race, not the beginning of the world.

Barbarian observes:
*He certainly could be deceptive, (appearance of age) if He chose to do that. But He will not be deceptive. So your belief denies a very basic attribute of God. He is truth.

I would think when God presented Eve to Adam and told him 'I just made her from your rib'...that Adam believed God.

Because God is not deceptive, we know this is allegorical. But of course, God didn't say that. It's another YE addition.

And God didn't lie when he said that there were windows in the sky through which water falls. If you don't get figurative language as used in the time of the Hebrews, then this kind of thing will always puzzle you.
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I would have the choice of believing you or believing God. Sorry about that.

The YEC doctrine of "life ex nihilo" denies what God says. He says that the Earth brought forth living things. They weren't poofed out of nothing.

Dear Barb,

No one said they were poofed out of nothing. It says He brought them from the waters. And also, formed them from the ground. If you think there is not enough chemistry in water and in the ground, to form what He intended, than that is your problem. See Gen. 1:20, 1:25. They were poofed out of whatever Our Great Chemist deems to be available.[/quote]

YEC was invented by a SDA "prophetess" in the early 1900s. Would you like me to show you? Before that, most creationists were OE. That was the sort of creationism presented by the creationists at the Scopes trial, for example. The great Baptist preacher, Spurgeon admitted millions of years of Earth processes. No, your new doctrine is no older than the last century.

YE isn't in the same hemisphere with the truth.

Only if one does so willfully, aware of the truth. If not, then there is no sin.

He certainly could be deceptive, if He chose to do that. But He will not be deceptive. So your belief denies a very basic attribute of God. He is truth.

You know are aware of it and do so willingly. He's not deceptive. If you believe that God is the Truth, and so is Jesus, you have no problem whatsoever.

Also, by the way, God did not 'CREATE' Adam and Eve as babies or infants. He created plants that were mid-life grown. He created all his creatures all young. No, God is not being deceptive. And even if He had to leave us without knowing ALL of the answers, it could be because of minds/brains were not yet ready for it all. Now you got it.

Michael
 

Mark SeaSigh

BANNED
Banned
NO!!!!!

Sue is Banned again!!!!

WHY SUE, WHY!!!!!!

=M=




=M= said:
Oh!

This is so Nice, are all you Evolutionists going to start holding hands next?
Sue said:
You mean like in a religious ritual?

=M= said:
No Sue, I mean like a bunch of Little Girls.

=M= said:
Or, are you ready to get Serious, and Debate?

Sue said:
It was the seriousness of what has been said that defeated creationist arguments 160 years ago. But like a game of whack-a-mole, some creationists don't know when their heads have been pummeled.

Why don't you tell me again, how you find the Order in the Rock Stacks, Must have been Put together by Someone, but you also think that the Order that is Seen in DNA, didn't take Someone to put the Information in Order.

Nice Sue, Nice.

Sounds like Evolution, has Been Defeated, By Order in the Known Universe Existing.
 
Last edited:

Mark SeaSigh

BANNED
Banned
Barbarian observes:
So they are now subspecies. But tell me, do you think you could get a viable cross between a wolf and a chihuahua?

Then they aren't a single species. They have to be able to reproduce on their own in the wild. So there, by your definition, are two species.

(SeaSigh imagines that science thought wolves and dogs were different species)

Barbarian observes:
When I was an undergraduate in the 60s, textbooks said that they were subspecies. Remember when I told you that not knowing what you were talking about, could trip you up?

Still the same. That hasn't changed, because the genetic evidence says the same thing.

Well, let's take a look...

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...00&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104618320333

Still considered a subspecies, one of a number of wolf subspecies. Surprised?

Barbarian observes:
We don't know who faked Piltdown Man, but we know he couldn't have been very smart about evolution, since the prediction was that an upright stance would have preceded a large brain. Piltdown had it the other way. So, it was with considerable relief among scientists, that an "evolutionist" showed it to be a fake. It was a much greater embarrassment when it was still not known to be a face, than after it was debunked by scientists.

It's one of the major differences between science and creationism. Science changes when the evidence indicates. For creationists, the evidence has to be changed to fit their doctrines.
Of course. As I said, it's one onf the major differences between science and creationism.
As you just learned, it was "evolutionists" who debunked the fraud. You have it backwards again.
Because Piltdown Man was contrary to evolutionary theory, it was a distinct embarrassment until someone found a way to demonstrate it was a fake. Then the problem went away.

I'm guessing you were told the "pig tooth" fable creationists often use. But they got it wrong. It was a javelina, not a pig, and the tooth was strangely worn down to resemble a primate tooth. But it was found by a dinosaur expert, who got it wrong. As soon as a primate specialist looked at it, the error was discovered.

Not what the told you? That's another big difference between scientists and creationists.
The reason you keep embarrassing yourself here is precisely because you're too gullible. Stop trusting people who tell you things and check the evidence for yourself.


=M= said:
Thanks for helping me Clarify my Point, I didn't know they never Cared to Check who Claimed the Find.
That just shows how Incompetent Evols are at Recognizing Truth.

Barbie, what is amazing to me, is that Evolutionists, want to believe in Evolution So Bad, that for forty years, they thought it was Proved by a Pigs tooth.

There is no Evidence for Evolution, if there was, you Evols would be Screaming it in the Streets.

=M=

Wolves and Dogs are the Same Exact Species. Update your Science, Barbie.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Are...la:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

They are not a Sub Species, In Fact the Word Subspecies Has never Been Defined by Science.

Do you have A Personal Definition of the Word Subspecies?

You said before, that you thought that they were two Separate Species.

They have been Split for a Very Long time, I think If I were you, being an Evol, I would wonder why these animals have not shown any Signs of Speciating.

Odd Don't you Think?

I mean, If that is True, that a Dog and wolf Don't Hybridize and that Their Offspring is Fully Fertile, than the Theoretical Process of Evolution is Obviously False.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Are...la:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

If the Above Link's Information is indeed truth, Then I guess the Process of Speciation, which is the most Vital Process in the Theory of Evolution, Doesn't Happen Ever.

Oh, it feels so Nice to not be a Silly Atheist Catholic.

========================================

Also,

Barbie said:
I'm guessing you were told the "pig tooth" fable creationists often use. But they got it wrong. It was a javelina, not a pig, and the tooth was strangely worn down to resemble a primate tooth.

Yep, that's right Folks; The Piltdown Man was Just a Pig's Tooth, But that Didn't Keep Evolutionists from Claiming it as Foolproof Evidence for the Theoretical Process of Evolution; For 40 Years!

Which Proves that Evolutionists Will Believe, Just about anything, and you shouldn't believe their Findings at all, Or at least for Forty Years or More; But like I said, they Will believe anything, Except that God Made man in His own Image, and that Adam didn't have to Learn how to Walk on Little Monkey Hand Feet, he was a Fully Developed Man, in the Day he was Created.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javelina

Looks Like a Pig to me, see how it contains Like Features with Every other Pig, including Boars; That is How you can tell, that it is A Piggy.

Javelina Can Fully Interbreed with Boars, and Boars can Interbreed with Pigs; Therefore, they are all the Same Species, no matter how your Classification system wants to Say it, A Javelina is a Pig, Given that they have like Features, and are all Capable of Interbreeding.

There are some Sites that Say Javelina And Pigs are a Separate Species, but as you can See, if a Boar is capable of Interbreeding with a Pig, and a Boar is also Capable of Interbreeding with a Javelina, then they are all the Same Species, Given the Definition of Species.

A pig and a Javelina, Are close Enough Genetically to Interbreed, but their Physical Features may Keep them From Doing So. However, a St. Bernard and a Chihuahua's Physical Features also Keep them From Breeding Naturally, but who doesn't consider them Both Dogs?
If they were Artificially Inseminated, then we could get a Mix of Chihuahua and St. Bernard, which may be an Odd Creature, but it would also Still be a Dog. The same can be considered, when considering the Javelina and Pig.

If it Has a Snout, a Curly Tail, and Tastes like Bacon; I'm gonna go ahead and Call it a Piggy.


==========================================

Barbie said:
tell me, do you think you could get a viable cross between a wolf and a chihuahua?

Then they aren't a single species. They have to be able to reproduce on their own in the wild. So there, by your definition, are two species.

According to My Definition, they are the Same Species, and According to Science they are the Same Species.

The fact that nature or features keep an animal From interbreeding does not make it a New Species.
If the animals Genes are Close Enough to be able to Reproduce, Even through the Means of artificial insemination and produce offspring, and have like features, then they should be considered the Same Species.

Given the Definition of Species; Animals With like Features, which are Capable of Interbreeding.

Apes and Man, are not the Same Kind of Animal; Even though Evols Try to say that Man is an Ape, and should be classified as an Ape; Evol Science has tried to Artificially Inseminate the two, But Since we are not apes, no Fertilization of the Egg took Place. These Evol Scientists Tried Both Ways, also. Ewwwwwwww. Either Way, Neither way lead to Fertilization.

==========================================
Barbie Girl said:
As you just learned, it was "evolutionists" who debunked the fraud. You have it backwards again.

I never said that Creationists were the Ones that Debunked it, you thought I did, Somehow Though.
Maybe, it is the Same Exact thought Process that leads you to believe in Such an Easy to Disprove Theory, like Evolution.
You believe things Happened, that never really Happened. See, it is the same Erroneous Thought Process; Like I Said before, Barbie and Other Evolutionists, have a Problem Thinking Critically.
 
Last edited:

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Dear Mark,

You'd best quit posting on my thread. You are too wild. Heheheheeh!! Just joking dude. I hope you had a great day today, as a preface for 2morrow. May God Pour Some Of His Spirit Into Your Soul!!!

I had a trip to my doctor today and he will find out what my PSA is in a few days. That will tell me how my cancer is doing. He also checked for Calcium. Eeeek!!! And Vitamin D. I just quit taking my 'multivitamins' for a few months and now I'm busted. It's too late to start taking it now, but I'm going to. Well, will close for now. I'm off-topic!

Michael
 

Mark SeaSigh

BANNED
Banned
Thank you Michael!

: D

I hope your day Goes Well, as well.

I also hope your Test Goes Well. I will Pray for you Buddy.

Wow!!!! It's almost September already!!!!!

=M=
 

Sealeaf

New member
Apes and Man, are not the Same Kind of Animal; Even though Evols Try to say that Man is an Ape, and should be classified as an Ape; Evol Science has tried to Artificially Inseminate the two, But Since we are not apes, no Fertilization of the Egg took Place. These Evol Scientists Tried Both Ways, also. Ewwwwwwww. Either Way, Neither way lead to Fertilization.
Mark do you have a citation for this claim? Specificly, who made this attempt, where and when? It seems quite likely but who actually did it? How about attempts to cross breed other great apes? Say chimps with Gorillas?
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Barbarian observes:
YEC doctrine of "life ex nihilo" denies what God says. He says that the Earth brought forth living things. They weren't poofed out of nothing.

But as you see, life was not produced from nothing. God says it was made from previous creation. So another reason that YE creationism denies God's word.

Life was formed by God's Intent and an Incredible Imagination. Someone who could squash you like bug and still you screw with Him. God 'poofed' everything out of nothing. I don't think so. If you read your Bible, check Gen. 1:20, 2:19. The aquatic life and fowl were created from the waters as it is written. The beasts were formed from the ground. Not poofed at all.

Barbarian observes:
YEC was invented by a SDA "prophetess" in the early 1900s.

Haven't you read the Scriptures?" Jesus replied. "They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.'
Matthew 19:4

If you had read the Scriptures, you would know that God says what was there at the beginning. Gen. 1:1

Male and female were not there. Jesus is speaking of the beginning of our race, not the beginning of the world.

Do you know how infantile it sounds saying "Barbarian observes?) You must have a splendid ego talking in third party like you don't.

Barbarian observes:
*He certainly could be deceptive, (appearance of age) if He chose to do that. But He will not be deceptive. So your belief denies a very basic attribute of God. He is truth.

Because God is not deceptive, we know this is allegorical. But of course, God didn't say that. It's another YE addition.

And God didn't lie when he said that there were windows in the sky through which water falls. If you don't get figurative language as used in the time of the Hebrews, then this kind of thing will always puzzle you.

You don't seem to know God at all.
 
Last edited:

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
What I said was Michael that I don't know why it would be considered at all reasonable for me to have inherited any blame/sin for something before my time and beyond my control.
I am an atheist Michael, I don't believe in one god never mind a trinity.
My disbelief here is not a deliberate choice or rebellion, it simply results from my not being reasonably convinced of any gods existence.

Performing evidence-free mental gymnastics in order to make empirical evidence conform to a preconceived idea of "God" isn't helping any imo, but yes if a supernatural power is to be introduced then just about anything can be supposed or imagined as true, even a deception and fabrication of evidence designed to mislead.
Do you think your God is perhaps trying to deceive us with misleading evidence?


Dear Alwight,

You are going to be clobbered because of what you do know. You've been refusing God for so long, there is quite a possibility that you.....
I wish there was more, right words to give to you and help you save yourelf.

Michael
 

alwight

New member
Dear Alwight,

You are going to be clobbered because of what you do know. You've been refusing God for so long, there is quite a possibility that you.....
I wish there was more, right words to give to you and help you save yourelf.

Michael
As far as I know Michael no god has ever asked anything of me that could be refused even if I wanted to. :plain:
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Barbie, what is amazing to me, is that Evolutionists, want to believe in Evolution So Bad, that for forty years, they thought it was Proved by a Pigs tooth.

Nope. You've been misled about that. The first time a mammal specialist saw it, he identified it as a javelina (not a pig, your creationist master goofed on that) tooth worn down in a strange manner that looked like a primate tooth.

The dinosaur specialist who found it made the error, and on review, the error was found. But of course, that wouldn't have made a good story, would it?

There is no Evidence for Evolution,

Other than observed speciation, genetics, fossil record, molecular biology, etc... Even honest creationists admit there is evidence for evolution.

Creationists like Kurt Wise, (who, to be fair, is a PhD in biology) Harold Coffin, and many others admit it.

(SeaSigh changes his story one more time)

Wolves and Dogs are the Same Exact Species. Update your Science, Barbie.

Hmm... you admitted that they were subspecies. I showed you that has been the case for a long time.

In Fact the Word Subspecies Has never Been Defined by Science.

As you learned, one of the great problems for creationism is that words like "species" and "subspecies" cannot be precisely defined (there are, of course, definitions for each of these ,but they don't apply for all things). Darwin made this point in his book. Creationists have struggled to show he was wrong, but they have always failed. Most of them now just admit speciation is a fact, and say some higher taxa is the limit of evolution.

You said before, that you thought that they were two Separate Species.

Nope. You just made that up. Many creationists think God approves of lying for a good cause.

Yep, that's right Folks; The Piltdown Man was Just a Pig's Tooth,

You're a little confused. The javelina tooth was a different mistake.

But that Didn't Keep Evolutionists from Claiming it as Foolproof Evidence for the Theoretical Process of Evolution; For 40 Years!

As you learned, it was a considerable embarrassment before it was debunked; a large brain and a primitive apelike body was contrary to evolutionary theory.

No one called it "foolproof." You were fooled about that, too.

Looks Like a Pig to me

Nope. Different species, different genera, different families.

Javelina Can Fully Interbreed with Boars, and Boars can Interbreed with Pigs; Therefore, they are all the Same Species, no matter how your Classification system wants to Say it, A Javelina is a Pig, Given that they have like Features, and are all Capable of Interbreeding.

You're pretty gullible if you believe that. Show us a checkable case.

The chromosome number between swine and peccaries is quite large, and although species of peccaries vary somewhat, none of them come close to the number of swine.

You've been had once again.

A pig and a Javelina, Are close Enough Genetically to Interbreed, but their Physical Features may Keep them From Doing So.

So which is it? Now you've given us two different stories.

Apes and Man, are not the Same Kind of Animal; Even though Evols Try to say that Man is an Ape, and should be classified as an Ape; Evol Science has tried to Artificially Inseminate the two, But Since we are not apes, no Fertilization of the Egg took Place.

Show us a checkable source for that. Maybe you should make it a practice to post only when you aren't doing pot.

Like I Said before, Barbie and Other Evolutionists, have a Problem Thinking Critically.

:chuckle:
 

6days

New member
Barbarian said:
Other than observed speciation, genetics, fossil record, molecular biology, etc... Even honest creationists admit there is evidence for evolution.

Barbarian... Do you know what evidence is? *Did you know that evolutionists and Biblical creationists have the exact same evidence? Did you know evolutionists and Biblical creationists examine the same mutation rates, the same distant galaxies, the same adaptations etc? *Did you know honest evolutionists admit there is evidence for Biblical creation? Are you an honest evolutionist?


Barbarian said:
Creationists like Kurt Wise, (who, to be fair, is a PhD in biology) Harold Coffin, and many others admit it.

Kurt Wise says*

" I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture"

(And he explains how scientific evidence supports his Biblical creationist beliefs)
 

6days

New member
Barbarian said:
*The javelina tooth was a different mistake.

Fraud is not a mistake. Piltdown was deliberate fraud and used to decieve generations of people in text books and journals.
 

6days

New member
Barbarian said:
As you learned, one of the great problems for creationism is that words like "species" and "subspecies"

A bit of bumbling barbarian baloney....

If anything evolutionists have trouble with the terms trying to juggle observational science with their belief system.

For example...Neandertals once were called a different species by evolutionists. Evolutionists said Neandertals were incapable of breeding with humans.*

Creationists said Neandertals appeared to be humans... descendants of Adam and Eve.*


Science once again proved the Biblical model was correct. Many of us are descendants of Neandertals. Evolutionists were surprised... but rather than admit Biblical creationists were correct, they now say Neandertals are a subspecies.*


Evolutionism cant be falsified. Terms are switched and stretched to accommodate almost anything. Evolutionism is a fog that covers any landscape.*
 

alwight

New member
Kurt Wise says*

" I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture"

(And he explains how scientific evidence supports his Biblical creationist beliefs)
Kurt Wise has shackled himself to an ancient scripture that unlike Piltdown Man can never even be considered as factually doubtful or "economical with the truth" by him.
Even if a literal Genesis seems to depart from a scientific reality to him, which I think for him it sometimes does, say when evidence and science that he himself accepts as honest and reasonable, seems to suggest it, then regardless of that Genesis must dogmatically remain undoubted by him in anticipation of a presumed better understanding.

However since it is generally agreed that Wise is an honest and well qualified man then perhaps you can indicate specifically what he claims is accepted scientific evidence which actively supports a Biblical creation, as you seem to think he does?
That would be rather more interesting to me perhaps than the usual dodgy creationist eye candy and evolutionist-stumping attempts served up regularly by the arguably less than honest or well qualified YECs.
 

Jose Fly

New member
Here's an interesting read on Kurt Wise, including his admission that, "Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds."

Honest Kurt Wise on Transitional Fossils

Also, Richard Dawkins' article on Wise is a good read: Sadly, an Honest Creationist.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
As you learned, one of the great problems for creationism is that words like "species" and "subspecies" cannot be precisely defined. Darwin wrote about this in his book. If creationism is true, and "kinds" are separately created, there should be no intermediates. But of course, in spite of repeated attempts to define "kind" or "species" precisely, creationists have failed. Many of them now have fallen back to the point of admitting the fact of speciation. They now define "kind" as some higher taxa that they are sure we will never directly observe forming.

A bit of bumbling barbarian baloney....

It's very true. Would you like me to show you in some detail?

If anything evolutionists have trouble with the terms trying to juggle observational science with their belief system.

Notice that it is observational science that makes life hard for creationists. If only they could come up with a precise definition for species, that might give them some hope.

For example...Neandertals once were called a different species by evolutionists.

In the 1960s most scientists thought that they were the same species. It wasn't until their genes began to be examined from DNA that we found them to be rather more divergent than earlier thought. Some then thought they should be classified as a separate species, albeit very closely related to us. Then, it was discovered that some of us carry Neandertal DNA, so at least some interbreeding went on. Then "transitionals" the Denesovians, were found, which were more like us than Neandertals are.

The situation is roughly like that of brown bears and polar bears. Again, "species" tends to be a bit hard to closely define, confounding creationists.

Evolutionists said Neandertals were incapable of breeding with humans.*

Show us that. Testable link to the literature. I don't remember anyone making such a strong claim.

Creationists said Neandertals appeared to be humans...

Some classified them as apes. Cuozzo (1980) described their skulls as "ape-like."

Because Neandertal skulls are more different from us than the skulls of late H. erectus, many creationists were reluctant to give them human status.

Indeed, the last world-class creationist biologist, Agassiz, thought that Africans were a separate species.

Only later, after real scientists showed conclusively that they were at most, a subspecies of human, did we see creationists changing.
 

6days

New member
Kurt Wise has shackled himself to an ancient scripture that unlike Piltdown Man can never even be considered as factually doubtful or "economical with the truth" by him.
Yes... He is 'shackled' to the source of absolute truth.


But you are sort of missing the point on him. Barbarian suggested Wise admits that evidence supports evolution. Its a silly suggestion because Wise is a Biblical creationist and understands that evidence is interpreted to support what you choose to believe.
However since it is generally agreed that Wise is an honest and well qualified man then perhaps you can indicate specifically what he claims is accepted scientific evidence which actively supports a Biblical creation, as you seem to think he does?
That would be rather more interesting to me perhaps than the usual dodgy creationist eye candy and evolutionist-stumping attempts served up regularly by the arguably less than honest or well qualified YECs.
Kurt Wise "Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."

There are various articles by Wise. The one Dawkins and others dishonestly quote mine is actually called Towards a Creationist
Understanding of 'Transitional Forms’

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf
 

Jose Fly

New member
Wise is a Biblical creationist and understands that evidence is interpreted to support what you choose to believe.

And there we see the creationist describing his approach to data, and at the same time projecting that approach onto everyone else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top