Evolution or Creationism?

Smidlee said:

Can a car fly?

Click to expand...

Cars were not designed to fly.

But if a car was designed to fly, and its engine malfunctioned more than half the time, and its wings were misshapen, and the driver seat faced backwards, the designer of that flying car would be stupid, lazy or incompetent.

You really don't have a hang of this whole analogy thing.

Smidlee said:

Man does fish in the ocean in case you didn't know.

Click to expand...

And beavers build dams out of branches. So clearly, all the trees on Earth were made for beavers.

Smidlee said:

That's a very narrow view.

Click to expand...

No, the narrow view is the one that states because humans are able to fish in the sea, that means the entire ocean was designed with them specifically in mind. Narrow, shallow and astoundingly arrogant.

Eight Foot Manchild said:

No, the narrow view is the one that states because humans are able to fish in the sea, that means the entire ocean was designed with them specifically in mind. Narrow, shallow and astoundingly arrogant.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that God created the earth first, then He created the universe around it.

AV1611VET said:

That's a different point altogether

Click to expand...

Actually, it's a point entirely relevant to the discussion, which you seem to be completely losing track of.

AV1611VET said:

This sounds more like an emotional comment than an intellectual one.

Click to expand...

Your vacuous naked assertions are a far, far cry from intellectual engagement. I dismiss them out of hand, unceremoniously.

AV1611VET said:

I don't expect you to understand the deep things of God I don't expect you to understand the deep things of God, but why you're insulting things you can't understand sounds like a personal problem to me.

Click to expand...

To understand something, in any meaningful sense of the word, is to possess a reliable means of gleaning and communicating information about it. You have no such thing. All you have is an endless deluge of vacuous naked assertions, predicated on a mythology that, far from being 'deep', is frankly not even good fiction.

So take a ticket and get in line behind the reiki-healer, the chakra-aligner, the acid-dropper, the spirit-talker and every other bullmonger out there pretending to possess some intangible, nebulous 'truth' that you can't produce or even coherently define. You're not special.

AV1611VET said:

Keep in mind that God created the earth first, then He created the universe around it.

Click to expand...

But we know that is not true. Again, you are proposing a dishonest God again when you make this claim.

Subduction Zone said:

But we know that is not true.

Click to expand...

Do you even know the Bible says it?

Again, you are proposing a dishonest God again when you make this claim.

Click to expand...

That's your job.

AV1611VET said:

Do you even know the Bible says it?

Click to expand...

Yes. I am familiar with Genesis.

That's your job.

Click to expand...

I have never made that claim, nor implied it. You cannot say the same.

Subduction Zone said:

Again, you are proposing a dishonest God again when you make this claim.

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

Do you even know the Bible says it?

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

Yes. I am familiar with Genesis.

Click to expand...

You know Genesis says it, but I'm the one proposing a dishonest God?

AV1611VET said:

You know Genesis says it, but I'm the one proposing a dishonest God?

Click to expand...

Yes, you are. I though you would have picked that up by now. Why do you think that Genesis has to be literally true? A literally true Genesis needs a dishonest God. Science is how we observe the Earth today. If your God is real he would be responsible for the fossil record that can only be explained by the theory of evolution. He would be responsible for the Cosmos that can only be explained by the Big Bang theory, he would be responsible for all sorts of science that disagrees with Genesis. So either God made the science lie or he was "lying" in Genesis. It is wiser to take it as allegory and morality tales. Then it is still of use.

For someone that supposedly admires Boolean logic you don't seem to have a very good concept of the practice.

Eight Foot Manchild said:

No, the narrow view is the one that states because humans are able to fish in the sea, that means the entire ocean was designed with them specifically in mind. Narrow, shallow and astoundingly arrogant.

Click to expand...

The person just wrote that the Earth was design for man and you tried to suggest he's stupid and lazy because man can't breathe water. A zoo is design for man but the zoo has fences around them you are not suppose to cross.

Now I didn't agree 100% with his statement ( I agree earth was design with man in mind though) but I think you logic is even more flawed. I don't see you any smarter than anyone else around here.
In Rev 4:11 " Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." God is still in the creation business.

Subduction Zone said:

That was not the goal of the experiment. The chirality issue is another problem altogether. Creationists always expect too much too soon.

You can read about that here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2857173/pdf/cshperspect-ORI-a002147.pdf

Click to expand...

I can't speak for all creationist but if man has try to build a rocket to go to the moon and every single rocket they build exploded before it could get off ground since the 60's I think that was strong evidence of how to not build a rocket.

Smidlee said:

I can't speak for all creationist but if man has try to build a rocket to go to the moon and every single rocket they build exploded before it could get off ground since the 60's I think that was strong evidence of how to not build a rocket.

Click to expand...

Think if he built a rocket that had as many parts missing as evolution!

(Comparatively speaking, of course.)

The falsification of TOE would imply only that TOE is false. There would be no way of deducing from that fact that a creator must exist.

But conversely, there is no way that the non existence of a creator can be deduced from the fact that the Theory of Evolution is true.

Why? Because there is simply no logical linkage between the two ideas.

Smidlee said:

The person just wrote that the Earth was design for man and you tried to suggest he's stupid and lazy because man can't breathe water.

Click to expand...

Who's 'the person'? Who's 'he'?

Please attempt to make sense if you're going to argue with me.

Smidlee said:

A zoo is design for man but the zoo has fences around them you are not suppose to cross.

Click to expand...

Your 'god' put no fences around nature. You have no rational account for the inhospitability of the planet, its natural disasters, its diseases etc.

Smidlee said:

Now I didn't agree 100% with his statement ( I agree earth was design with man in mind though) but I think you logic is even more flawed.

Click to expand...

So far you've failed utterly to defend that abysmally arrogant, asinine assertion, which flies in the face of reality.

Smidlee said:

God is still in the creation business.

Click to expand...

If his 'creation' is meant to be anthropocentric, he sucks at it.

Eight Foot Manchild said:

Your 'god' put no fences around nature.

Click to expand...

Really?

Psalm 74:17 Thou hast set all the borders of the earth: thou hast made summer and winter.

AV1611VET said:

Really?

Click to expand...

Yes, really. Don't quote me if you have no argument to make. That the anonymous author of a particular Psalm thought the Earth has borders is not relevant.

Smidlee said:

I can't speak for all creationist but if man has try to build a rocket to go to the moon and every single rocket they build exploded before it could get off ground since the 60's I think that was strong evidence of how to not build a rocket.

Click to expand...

This is extremely foolish since scientists have had many completely successful experiments. It only shows your abject ignorance of the topic and your ignorance of how scientific research is done. What experiments ever "blew up"? They definitely did not crash and burn.

Your complaints are the same as those that complain when a wing being tested in a wind tunnel does not immediately take off and fly on its own. Scientists break problems down into manageable tests. They very very very rarely try to solve a complicated problem in one experiment.

AV1611VET said:

Think if he built a rocket that had as many parts missing as evolution!

(Comparatively speaking, of course.)

Click to expand...

What parts do you think are missing to the theory of evolution? Once again you are using faulty reasoning AV.

Eight Foot Manchild said:

That the anonymous author of a particular Psalm thought the Earth has borders is not relevant.

Click to expand...

Actually, Asaph wrote it.

It's right there in black and white.

I'd hate to see some people as a bounty hunter.

The person he's looking for could walk around with a sign on his back saying, I'M THE ONE YOU'RE LOOKING FOR and not be caught.

AV1611VET said:

Actually, Asaph wrote it.

It's right there in black and white.

I'd hate to see some people as a bounty hunter.

The person he's looking for could walk around with a sign on his back saying, I'M THE ONE YOU'RE LOOKING FOR and not be caught.

Click to expand...

And what is your evidence for this claim? I hope you don't claim that the Gospels were written by the people they were name for. Biblical scholars are fairly sure that that is not the case.

Subduction Zone said:

What parts do you think are missing to the theory of evolution?

Click to expand...

I don't think any parts are missing, actually.

They were never there in the first place.

But since evolution "proves" a negative, I was playing Devil's advocate.

Once again you are using faulty reasoning AV.

Click to expand...

Meaning you disagree?