Would someone please prove that creationism is not a crock,

[Cabal]

TA, I attempted a point-by point refute, with quotes, but the way your post is randomly formatted is making that rather hard to wade through, so I'm just going to fire off some general points:

- The abiogenesis website: Not really sure where to start on this one. All I'm going to say is, abiogenesis is nothing mystical, just a chemical reaction pathway. They seem rather keen on citing one SciAm article a lot (but neglecting to mention its optimistic conclusion of course), they keep talking about "science of the gaps" (how twee, it's not like science has a better record of consistently delivering results or anything like that) and they fail to mention ANYTHING about catalysis, or any other mechanism of facilitating reaction. The whole thing seems like a big attempt to pass off the Miller-Urey results, and I don't care how "unrealistic" people claim it is - biological material was created from non-biological material. That is a HUGE point in favour of abiogenesis.

They seem ready to just declare the whole thing impossible and move on, which doesn't surprise me as their website has an obvious agenda to try and prove God. Firstly, I don't see why God is something that should be evidenced, if there was evidence for him it would no longer be a matter of faith and choice to belief in him, which is what God always wanted for mankind (Blessed are those who believe without seeing etc). Secondly, it's worth noting that science has NO attachment to its results, they're simple what's observed. The creationists you're fond of reading however, they feel the need to prove God, whom they seem to believe in a lot. I think they stand to lose a lot more - most creationists seem to think that being a TE is impossible, I disagree, naturally, but their belief that it is impossible will only make their twisting of the evidence more desperate.

My final word on this topic: as I said, abiogenesis is nothing mystical, just a particular reaction pathway that is currently unknown. To claim that it's not possible by absolute fiat is like claiming 150 years that ammonia was synthesised by the almighty power of God and that man was foolish to think it could be manufactured. And then, boom, Haber process. A reaction pathway was found. There is no reason to think that this wouldn't apply here.

And AGAIN you post the $1m "contest" for "proving" evolution. I've told you before I find your waving of this around insulting. Don't do it again.

- Ok, if Richard Dawkins' explanation of the eye is going to go over the heads of so-called intelligent adults, I'm not going to feel too worried that a bunch of small humans don't grasp the concept either.

- Wow, one person dissenting from the scientific consensus on fossils. And even if the lineage isn't quite correct, your quote still states that he considers evolution to be true. And I notice you use the "hundreds of thousands of middle school students" line yourself. If you don't like it being used on your viewpoints, maybe don't use it on others?

- Your transitional fossils...rant. Transitional species doesn't mean half-formed, they're just examples of species inbetween two other groups - in the case of archaeopteryx, the dinosaurs and modern birds. A transitional species isn't a lifeform that's a bit botched, it's purely a man-made label for the purposes of highlighting the process of evolution. Tiktaalik was labelled as such for the same reason - because it's such a good example to illustrate evolution. But why should they be "half-finished" as you say? These species had to be optimised for their environment too, otherwise they wouldn't have survived to evolve into more modern species.

- You haven't attempted to understand punctuated equilibrium. Maybe make an attempt.

- Again with the complexity argument. If you posit the complex requires a complex designer, the designer is complex, so where is the complex designer of the complex designer? Infinite loop -> FAIL. Crystals are complex, and they are thermodynamically inevitable. It's not a hard or unfamiliar concept if you actually wish to think on it.

- Ravi Zacharias and Douglas Wilson are not atheists. Atheists find plenty of meaning without God in their lives. What the hell is it with Christians who act like they know other people better than they know themselves?

- Thomas, I hate to be harsh with you again, but on the whole these arguments have been tried, time and time again, by far better writers than you. They simply don't work. There's a really strong tendency for Christians to reuse tired-out old arguments, I strongly urge you not to fall into that trap, because it's not going to save anyone.

 

[AV1611VET]

By the logic, or lack there of, that you prescribe to we can come to believe anything. If all I need is a book...

But atheists take that one step further --- they don't even need a book.

In light of this: 1 --- they still say God doesn't exist.

 

[Hespera]

TA... do us all a favour? Say a few well chosen words of you OWN, and offer a link, dont cut and paste the creo encyclo?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

But atheists take that one step further --- they don't even need a book.

In light of this: 1 --- they still say God doesn't exist.

That shouldn't come as a surprise, seeing how you never bothered to explain what exactly this discovery has to do with the existence of God.

 

[Hespera]

That shouldn't come as a surprise, seeing how you never bothered to explain what exactly this discovery has to do with the existence of God.

Easy. to such, everything has to do with proving the existence of god.
Even tho it cant be proved.

Funny tho him talking about stubborn refusal to see evidence for what it is.

 

[Nathan Poe]

That shouldn't come as a surprise, seeing how you never bothered to explain what exactly this discovery has to do with the existence of God.

Because it has nothing to do with God, and everything to do with ignorance.

Since Ignorance is AV's God, it stands to reason that so long as ignorance exists, God must be.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

A young flatfish starts life swimming near the surface, and it is symmetrical and vertically flattened, like a trout. But then the skull starts to grow in a strange, asymmetrical, twisted fashion, so that one eye moves over the top of the head to finish up on the other side. The young fish then settles down on the bottom, with both eyes looking upwards. The bony skull of a flatfish retains the twisted and distorted evidence of its origins.

I guess an 'intelligent designer' got it wrong the first time he designed a flatfish, but got it right the second time when he designed the symmetrical skate and sting ray. I suppose this put the designer into the category of 'average' designer.

 

[AV1611VET]

A young flatfish starts life swimming near the surface, and it is symmetrical and vertically flattened, like a trout. But then the skull starts to grow in a strange, asymmetrical, twisted fashion, so that one eye moves over the top of the head to finish up on the other side. The young fish then settles down on the bottom, with both eyes looking upwards. The bony skull of a flatfish retains the twisted and distorted evidence of its origins.

A young child starts his early life being fed through a tube connected to his stomach --- later, he can feed himself through a slit in front of his head.

Also --- what makes you think this flatfish doesn't need the eyes on both sides so he can avoid being eaten?

If I understand my zoology correctly, animals with eyes on both sides are animals of prey (mostly herbivores), and animals with both eyes up front are animals that prey on others (mostly carnivores).

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

A young child starts his early life being fed through a tube connected to his stomach --- later, he can feed himself through a slit in front of his head.

Also --- what makes you think this flatfish doesn't need the eyes on both sides so he can avoid being eaten?

If I understand my zoology correctly, animals with eyes on both sides are animals of prey (mostly herbivores), and animals with both eyes up front are animals that prey on others (mostly carnivores).

I never thought I would see the day, but AV, you actually demonstrate you understand evolutionary biology.

That is exactly the point. Selective pressures favored those fish whose eyes were closer together, since for survival they tended to spend time on the bottom. Successive generations now have both eyes on top of a twisted skull.

As an aside AV, why is it you continue to use KJV when it has been shown to be one of the most inaccurate translations of the Bible we have?

 

[AV1611VET]

I never thought I would see the day, but AV, you actually demonstrate you understand evolutionary biology.

Hey, man --- c'mon! I was just kidding!


No, actually I was just espousing zoological doctrine --- IOW, parroting what I learned.

That is exactly the point. Selective pressures favored those fish whose eyes were closer together, since for survival they tended to spend time on the bottom. Successive generations now have both eyes on top of a twisted skull.

It's still a flatfish.

As an aside AV, why is it you continue to use KJV when it has been shown to be one of the most inaccurate translations of the Bible we have?

I don't think so --- in fact, It's Predecessors are almost word-for-word with It.

It comes from the Koine Greek line --- whereas all the other translations come from the Classical Greek line.

What, for instance, is the NASB's 8th Century equivalent?

Or the NIV's? Or the TEV's?

The King James' 8th century equivalent is the AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version.

Prior to that, it was the AV330 Gothic Version.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Hey, man --- c'mon! I was just kidding!


No, actually I was just espousing zoological doctrine --- IOW, parroting what I learned.It's still a flatfish.I don't think so --- in fact, It's Predecessors are almost word-for-word with It.

It comes from the Koine Greek line --- whereas all the other translations come from the Classical Greek line.

What, for instance, is the NASB's 8th Century equivalent?

Or the NIV's? Or the TEV's?

The King James' 8th century equivalent is the AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version.

Prior to that, it was the AV330 Gothic Version.

Sometimes when you parrot things, you're still correct, as in this case.
Of course it's still a flatfish, what esle would you expect it to be?

And the Revised Standard is much better in it's translation of the original Greek. It's based on mss dating back to second and third century. Whereas KJV is based on eighth century copies of copies of copies of copies... well, you get the idea.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Hey, man --- c'mon! I was just kidding!


No, actually I was just espousing zoological doctrine --- IOW, parroting what I learned.

But at least you learned something -- after over half a million posts, not even you could hold out forever.

It's still a flatfish.

And let me guess, AV -- you won't even consider evolution until it turns into a late-model Volkswagen?

You can run off the ol' PRATTS, AV, but we can see you're heart's not in it anymore -- you've actually learned something, and feigning ignorance won't cut it anymore.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can run off the ol' PRATTS, AV, but we can see you're heart's not in it anymore -- you've actually learned something, and feigning ignorance won't cut it anymore.

I guess it's all over now, eh?

I ... I really didn't mean it ---

 

[Nathan Poe]

I guess it's all over now, eh?

I ... I really didn't mean it ---

Learning is never over, AV...

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I guess it's all over now, eh?

I ... I really didn't mean it ---

I know, that's the funny part.

 

[AV1611VET]

And the Revised Standard is much better in it's translation of the original Greek.

Original Koine Greek, or original Classical Greek?

What this whole KJV-VS-ALL-OTHERS amounts to is the Greek line they come from --- Koine or Classical.

It's based on mss dating back to second and third century. Whereas KJV is based on eighth century copies of copies of copies of copies... well, you get the idea.

Yes, but the KJV was superintended by God, Himself.

If you disagree, then again, I have to ask: Where is, for example, the NIV's 8th century predecessor?

We still have the KJV's predecessors around (in English, anyway), and they're nearly word-for-word with each other --- which is what one would expect to see.

 

[Philothei]

The Oxford Annotated with the Apocrypha seems to be a good one I like the commentaries on the bottom too

 

[AV1611VET]

The Oxford Annotated with the Apocrypha seems to be a good one I like the commentaries on the bottom too

I'm KJVO --- Peter S Ruckman and Gail A Riplinger have nothing on me ---

ETA: I just read Peter S Ruckman's bio and ... um ... I'm not quite that confrontational!

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Yes, but the KJV was superintended by God, Himself.

quote]
Do you really believe this?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, but the KJV was superintended by God, Himself.

Do you really believe this?

Yes --- God uses a four-fold process in getting His Word to us:

1. Inspiriation --- [creates His Word]
2. Preservation --- [protects His Word]
3. Translation --- [updates His Word]
4. Propagation --- [spreads His Word]