Creation vs. Evolution

[Omniskeptical]

"Sudden" appearance again clearly doesn't mean miraculous or created, or sudden in human terms.
More rational people would probably not jump to such conclusions.
More rational people would probably note the geological changes indicated in the strata and then look honestly for common ancestors from what was around before. Waving away the evidence because you'd rather believe in miracles is rather a requirement for YECs it seems.

I believe in Darwin's dumb version of God which can't do miracles sums your beliefs, it would seem.

 

[noguru]

I believe in Darwin's dumb version of God which can't do miracles sums your beliefs, it would seem.

:rotfl:

Darwin's theory was about biodiversity in nature not about God's potential. And Alwight does not believe in God.

Do have any other stupid comments?

Do you enjoy broadcasting your stupidity for the world to see, because that does seem to be a common thread with most creationists?

 

[alwight]

:rotfl:

Darwin's theory was about biodiversity in nature not about God's potential. And Alwight does not believe in God.

Do have any other stupid comments?

Do you enjoy broadcasting your stupidity for the world to see, because that does seem to be a common thread with most creationists?

This is a person who has rejected all radiometric dating as just a few random clicks, impressed?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Nonsense Dave, take a look at wild life, lions don't pick their prey at random, predators choose their prey from what they can kill at least cost to themselves, while inept predators starve and die. The concept of natural selection is probably only difficult to those who don't want it to be true.

How does anything you are saying cause what ever to exist to become something else?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

It's impossible to have a mindless selection, without mind there would be only randomness.

--Dave

In DNA

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

The wind, rain, predators etc. do not produce random mutations.

--Dave

 

[The Barbarian]

I believe in Darwin's dumb version of God which can't do miracles sums your beliefs, it would seem.

Darwin wrote that God created the first living things. Sounds like a miracle to me. Augustine wrote that the everyday workings of nature are miracles. And they are.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Darwin wrote that God created the first living things. Sounds like a miracle to me. Augustine wrote that the everyday workings of nature are miracles. And they are.

Then God is nature.

You guys are so theological and philosophical brain dead you can't see the countless contradictions you are in.

Scientists place themselves above rationality because any contradiction to the theory of evolution only means to them they must adjust the theory, which is why it's not a science. It's a religion that makes nature God and for the believer in God it makes God nature. The former is pantheism and the later is pan-en-theism and both are irrational.

--Dave

 

[6days]

Darwin wrote that God created the first living things.

God says..." Everything was created through him and for him."
Col.1:16
Darwin was wrong.

 

[The Barbarian]

Then God is nature.

You guys are so theological and philosophical brain dead you can't see the countless contradictions you are in.

So if a carpenter builds a chair, you think he's a chair. Miracles aren't a magic act. The universe is a miracle, but you're too jaded by your fairy tales to see it.

BTW, you've still not shown us those two major groups said to be related, that lack a transitional. Have you decided to give up and admit that you were wrong?

Why not overcome your pride and accept it God's way?

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that Darwin wrote that God created the first living things)

Darwin was wrong.

The Bible says He did. I'll go with the Bible.

 

[DFT_Dave]

God says..." Everything was created through him and for him."
Col.1:16
Darwin was wrong.

The foundation for logic, rational thought, is God is not nature.

The first rule of logic is lost if this most basic distinction is not recognized,

"Anything is what it is and not something else."

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

So if a carpenter builds a chair, you think he's a chair. Miracles aren't a magic act. The universe is a miracle, but you're too jaded by your fairy tales to see it.

BTW, you've still not shown us those two major groups said to be related, that lack a transitional. Have you decided to give up and admit that you were wrong?

Why not overcome your pride and accept it God's way?

I gave you the answer, you can't even tell what it was, can you.

--Dave

 

[alwight]

How does anything you are saying cause what ever to exist to become something else?

--Dave

Individuals don't become something else, beneficial adaptions are seen in the resulting generations of those individuals that are successful.
The next generation is perhaps the beginning of the next "something else".

 

[DFT_Dave]

Individuals don't become something else, beneficial adaptions are seen in the resulting generations of those individuals that are successful.
The next generation is perhaps the beginning of the next "something else".

A group is made up of individuals and you seem to be telling me all the individuals in a group get the same mutation all at the same time.

But we know that is not how it happens, so how can all the members in a group change all together at the same time or with in the same time period?

--Dave

 

[alwight]

A group is made up of individuals and you seem to be telling me all the individuals in a group get the same mutation all at the same time.

How did you arrive at that conclusion Dave? Future individuals are not a part of any current group nor is their DNA which will tend to be derived from only successful individuals by natural selection.

But we know that is not how it happens, so how can all the members in a group change all together at the same time or with in the same time period?

--Dave

I think if you tried harder to understand what I actually said rather than make something up, we might just get a bit further sometimes.
If the DNA in the future generations is derived from that of their successful predecessors then the less than successful DNA of unsuccessful individuals will not be represented.
Isn't this pretty basic stuff Dave?

 

[DFT_Dave]

How did you arrive at that conclusion Dave? Future individuals are not a part of any current group nor is their DNA which will tend to be derived from only successful individuals by natural selection.

I think if you tried harder to understand what I actually said rather than make something up, we might just get a bit further sometimes.
If the DNA in the future generations is derived from that of their successful predecessors then the less than successful DNA of unsuccessful individuals will not be represented.
Isn't this pretty basic stuff Dave?

So that would mean that any group is made up of those with a mutated advantage and those who don't. Right?

And if that be so then why would any generation not have a mix of mutants with various traits?

--Dave

 

[patrick jane]

i know it may seem like i agree with everyone and i do on certain things. ijust think once God set everything in motion He allowed natural science and selection, evolution or whatever you want to label it. dft and alwight make valid points. i think you both agree that dna changes don't happen to a group at the same time. but i disagree the future groups are'nt psrt of any current group, that does'nt make logical sense

 

[MichaelCadry]

That's because talking to you is like talking to the wind. It accomplishes very little if anything, and all we can hear is you howling about nothing.

Dear noguru,

As far as I remember, we were good friends. Has that changed?? Mark S. does not howl about nothing. He is very factual and explains himself as best as he can, and everyone doesn't know what to say except to get jealous or lash out back. He deserves a lot for all his work and evidently, people don't seem to realize that. Us Christians agree with him!!

To My Dear Brethren,

Michael

:rapture:

:shocked:

 

[MichaelCadry]

:rotfl:

Darwin's theory was about biodiversity in nature not about God's potential. And Alwight does not believe in God.

Do have any other stupid comments?

Do you enjoy broadcasting your stupidity for the world to see, because that does seem to be a common thread with most creationists?

Dear noguru,

It seems that you are more at home dissing others with snide remarks rather than saying anything profitable. You like to belittle people and hold them in derision. Whatever happened to the guy I knew? You are serving no purpose. Everyone can see what you are doing and what you are like.

Michael

:wazzup:

:shocked: