Evilution VS Evolution

[bhsmte]

That is my point, there is a difference between: "evilution" and evolution. I have said many times there is no conflict between true science (evolution) and the Bible. The problem is that "evilution" is a fake, a copy or a counterfeit of the real thing. Science needs to clean up their own ranks to get rid of bad science. In time they do. That really is what science is suppose to be all about.

You have said a lot of things many times.

If you think that makes them true, better try harder.

 

[bhsmte]

Ask yourself why do they bother coming here to post?
Don't they have anything better to do with their life?

I like to be entertained.

 

[USincognito]

Excuse me, but since when is evolution "true science"?

I think a more important question is what is "true science" and how is it different from, well, science?

...because there wouldbe evidence to support evolution,

There is. You may not know it or you may not understand it, but there is a plethora of evidences supporting evolution.

...and DNA would be able to write itself by means of data corruption and selection of the viable remnants of mutated life.

Huh?

 

[lesliedellow]

So they say, but so they can't show...

Yes biologists do say that, including the great majority of Christians amongst them, and they say it because it is true.

 

[USincognito]

The irony being that its science that destroys the famous 19th century conjecture...
But that will take a generation to trickle down to the sheeple, as usual...

Why do so many Creationists post vacuous rhetoric rather than something of substance that actually shows how evolution has been "destroyed"?

 

[HitchSlap]

Why do so many Creationists post vacuous rhetoric rather than something of substance that actually shows how evolution has been "destroyed"?

Because there's a conspiracy to suppress the Truth?

 

[Hieronymus]

That is fine with me, call it theistic evolution if you want. So really our choice is are we going to endorse theistic evolution or atheistic evolution.

I have more options.
The explanatory power of a conscious supernatural causer and designer-manufacturer (God), or even a company of designer-manufacturers, having created living nature as a whole plus its premises (like the solar system, the laws of physics...)
is increasingly stronger, as the sciences still discover more characteristics of design, manufacturing and fine tuning in our common reality.

Sure, "science" still has this immense platform from which they preach their mandatory truths,

but the evidence only gives them more things they can not explain.
But you won't hear about that if you are not looking for it.
This is also the case when evolutionist claims turn out to be wrong.

 

[HitchSlap]

I have more options.
The explanatory power of a conscious supernatural causer and designer-manufacturer (God), or even a company of designer-manufacturers, having created living nature as a whole plus its premises (like the solar system, the laws of physics...)
is increasingly stronger, as the sciences still discover more characteristics of design, manufacturing and fine tuning in our common reality.

Sure, "science" still has this immense platform from which they preach their mandatory truths,

but the evidence only gives them more things they can not explain.
But you won't hear about that if you are not looking for it.
This is also the case when evolutionist claims turn out to be wrong.

There are no good reasons to believe you.

 

[Papias]

That is fine with me, call it theistic evolution if you want. So really our choice is are we going to endorse theistic evolution or atheistic evolution.

As Christians, yes, that's right.

As Christians, we can endorse theistic germ theory, or atheistic germ theory.

As Christians, we can endorse theistic gravity, or atheistic gravity.

As Christians, we can endorse theistic atom theory, or atheistic atom theory.

In each case, we decide if we see the hand of our God behind it all, or not.

I choose God.

Papias

 

[Hieronymus]

2nd comment on same:

That is my point, there is a difference between: "evilution" and evolution. I have said many times there is no conflict between true science (evolution) and the Bible.

Did someone tear out the first page?


But even then..

 

[Hoghead1]

Joshua 19, you use of derogatory terms such as "evolution" is inappropriate in a theological discussion forum and seriously compromises the validity of your points. We need sound reasoning, not inflammatory rhetoric, which you do seem very prone to.

 

[Hieronymus]

Why do so many Creationists post vacuous rhetoric rather than something of substance that actually shows how evolution has been "destroyed"?

All we do here is refer to substance.
Either by quoting or re-telling sources, or linking to it.
Browse my playlist for an idea of substance that evolution can not digest:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzXkVr_R6Kg30l25sDsjipQRpUMQXVi9W

 

[Hoghead1]

Hier, I don't appreciate it when someone blows me off by directing me to some online site. I don't have the time to go online. I want to hear from you, your views, not some site online. When people blow me off this way, I get suspicious they really don't understand it and can't explain it in their own words.

 

[Hieronymus]

Hier, I don't appreciate it when someone blows me off by directing me to some online site.

Do you prefer to be blown you off to an offline site?

I don't have the time to go online. I want to hear from you, your views, not some site online. When people blow me off this way, I get suspicious they really don't understand it and can't explain it in their own words.

You're not gonna believe me anyway, plus i might mess it up.

 

[USincognito]

All we do here is refer to substance.

Indeed. You refer to it, but you never provide any of it.

Either by quoting or re-telling sources, or linking to it.

When have you ever done that?

Browse my playlist for an idea of substance that evolution can not digest:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzXkVr_R6Kg30l25sDsjipQRpUMQXVi9W

I see, now we've moved from vacuous rhetoric to links without comment. That's another pattern of behavior from Creationists. They want us to watch hour long You Tube videos or post links to Creationist websites because they cannot express their objections in their own words.

 

[USincognito]

I looked over his playlist. There's one from Carl Werner and this gem -"LATEST DNA SCIENCE supports NOAH'S FLOOD! Carl Gallups Explains"

Who is Carl Gallups? An expert in genetics? No, he's a former cop and pastor.

Carl Gallups - is the senior pastor of Hickory Hammock Baptist Church in Milton, FL (since 1987), an Amazon Top 60 best selling author, and a conservative talk radio host heard nationally and internationally (since 2002). He is also a TV, radio, and print media guest commentator, and a former decorated Florida law enforcement officer. Carl is the founder of the internet PNN News and Ministry Network (www.ppsimmons.com), and a member of the Board of Regents at the University of Mobile in Mobile, Alabama. He is a graduate of the Florida Police Training Academy, Florida State University (B.Sc. and Master's level work in Public Administration) and the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary (M.Div.).​

 

[Hoghead1]

US is right, Hier. That person you recommend has absolutely no education in science and no qualifications that would enable him to make such judgments. Those of us in the field are interested in lay opinions such as he has, but we are not about to take them seriously. We'd be crazy to turn our work over to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who wants to play bar-stool quarterback with science, biblical studies, religion, etc.

 

[Hieronymus]

Indeed. You refer to it, but you never provide any of it.

Yes i did.
You're gonna ignore it in a few sentences.

When have you ever done that?

In one centence actually.

I see, now we've moved from vacuous rhetoric to links without comment.

Let me quote myself to refresh your memory:
"Browse my playlist for an idea of substance that evolution can not digest:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzXkVr_R6Kg30l25sDsjipQRpUMQXVi9W "

That's another pattern of behavior from Creationists.

What?

They want us to watch hour long You Tube videos or post links to Creationist websites because they cannot express their objections in their own words.

Would it change anything if i linked to pictures and commented on it or cut / paste quotes from sources?
I guess i should do that more often, but nothing beats a documentary or lecture on video.

And in this case, the question was for substance in general.
Apparently my own reproductions of creationist (or ID if you like) arguments don't cut it,
so i provide a link to a play list you could bookmark to browse later.
You don't have to.
I put the creation stuff on top op the list.
More will be added.

 

[Hieronymus]

I looked over his playlist. There's one from Carl Werner and this gem -"LATEST DNA SCIENCE supports NOAH'S FLOOD! Carl Gallups Explains"

Who is Carl Gallups? An expert in genetics? No, he's a former cop and pastor.

Of course, the ad hominem argumentation.
He just made a short documentary.
You don't need a PhD to make a documentary.
A documentary documents documentation.

 

[Hoghead1]

No, you certainly don't need a Ph.D. to make a documentary. But you do not at least a Ph.D. to claim expertise in science. Obviously, your source lacks that and sis suspect for being unqualified.