- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,141
- 51,515
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
-- Good one!Especially when the universe keeps expanding beyond light speed.
Upvote
0
-- Good one!Especially when the universe keeps expanding beyond light speed.
Their whole theory is built upon an assumption(s) and they expect us to ignore the historical records in favor of an assumption(s).
All present state in the past belief based. The way that viri transferred was not as it now is unless we had a present state. The way decay exists is a present state feature. You NEED to prove there was this state in the past, NOT first assume it.
Only God could be responsible judging by the evidence.
Hey you could claim Darwin farted rose pedals, but you will not have hundreds of holy witnesses and millions of people dying to verify that. This is where you are at. Act like it.
Were you there to observe them lying, or making mistakes, or not being inspired of God? No. Act like it.
Religion stays static because it avoids evidence.
You guys are afraid to try.
Religion stays static because it avoids evidence.
You guys are afraid to try.
I think your confusing the word Religion for the word belief. In this case their beliefs.Religion stays static because it avoids evidence.
Unless it's Catholicism, which likes to begrudgingly concede to reason and evidence, ages after the rest of us.
I think your confusing the word Religion for the word belief. In this case their beliefs.
Astridhere - what part of the criteria for ape do humans not meet? If you continue to persist in saying humans are not apes, I will continue to ask you this question. You haven't answered it yet (though no doubt you'll protest that humans have advanced language skills and intelligence which simply shows you don't understand the question).
That's a good point. We might not have all the right answers through science, yet, but at least scientists are trying. Whereas Biblists and other religionists seem afraid to even try to be correct. I guess when you build your entire worldview and belief system on a foundation of self-delusion, it's a little scary to try to mess with it and feel like your entire life is crumbling around you.
Not only stable, but down right Fossilized.
No actually creationist predictions have stood the test of time, unlike evolutionists that cannot hang on to any evidence longer that the time it takes a book to go to print.
Or better data. Why would they "need" to change? You continue to insist that "change is bad."
Change shows instability. LUCA is dead and so is Darwin's theory. You cannot hold up irrefutable evidence for evolution eg LUCA then discredit it and say what you are producing is science.
When this sort of thing happens, which is all the time, I as a creationist think evolutionary scientists are straw grabbing and the constant changes are proof of the accusation.
Tell us all one more time what data would NOT support creationist paradigms. I keep asking but you don't answer. Wonder why.....
Yep answered yet again below. Maybe this time you will actually absorb the information.
Like how mankind interprets books written by mankind? Or maybe, you don't actually reason when you interpret scripture... that is a distinct possibility...
As I said I prefer to put faith in a book that demonstrated a higher intelligence behind it than in mankind that produces unstable and always changing scenarios to keep evolution alive. Your choice and my choice. I just think I have the upper hand of the two choices
If self-correcting = "unstable." How do you determine when you are wrong about scripture, again?I do not use scripture to support creation. I use science to support creation, which also happens to be the basis of the bible
Psudopod, I have replied many times and said an ape does not meet the criteria of humans due to not having sophisticated speech and higher reasoning ability.
It is not the arms and legs that distinguishes mankind from beast and non humans primates.
As I do not believe in a common ancestor for all mammals, . . .
and these footprints could not possibly belong to a 3.5ft, curved fingered ape.
As a creationist I look to discontinuity between kinds.
The fact that God reused His great ideas and best designs in various creatures, like giving frogs and mankind the same legs and whales and primates the same neural spindles means He did not need to reinvent the wheel with each and every creation.
So again let me say the difference between man and beast is sophisticated language and higher reasoning ability and these are required to light and control fires, make stone huts, and understand Gods' instructions.
No that I am afraid is showing a great deal of ignorance. I alone have produced helium dating and links to some of the science that stands behind creation. Other have also provided creationist evidence and science. Just because you do not read the links or unaware of the information is a lacking on your part, not ours.
It may be fun to spend your time ridiculing creationists but it is extremely erraneous.
It is very much about interpretation of the evidence and data and creationists can interpret the data to suit just as well as evolutionists, but based on different assumptions.
Which assumptions do creationists use?
Which assumptions do scientists use?
How can we test to see if those assumptions are correct?
No actually creationist predictions have stood the test of time, unlike evolutionists that cannot hang on to any evidence longer that the time it takes a book to go to print.
Change shows instability.
LUCA is dead
I have stated many times that junk DNA does not sit with creationism and was one of the things you guys used to run into creationists. Now you have found junk DNA is not junk at all.
Vestigal organs do not align with creationism and once again this used to be run into creationists and still is. However scientists are also finding this assertion erraneous as they do have function. eg human apendix.
As I said I prefer to put faith in a book that demonstrated a higher intelligence behind it
An ape like creature, eg the erraneous sketches of Neanderthal years ago, the bent over half ape half human, that can discuss afterlife would also suffice to disprove creation, but you cannot produce one of them as evidence either as they all mysteriously became extinct. How unfortunate!.
What you can present as evidence for evolution is a list of misrepresented kinds and species thrown into family ranks and non plausible scenarios, but no evidence that discredits creation.
Yes, actually. There are quite a few alternative genetic codes found here and there -- many in mitochondria, some in bacteria. All are closely related to the standard code, however, and could clearly have evolved from it. In an organism with a small genome, rarely used codons may become superfluous, and a change in their mapping can occur without ill effects.Since when? Has someone found an organism that does not use the same codon tables as the rest of life?
All are closely related to the standard code, however, . . .
Uniformitarianism is not an observation, it is an assumption about the past that is based on the interpretation of the present. And it is an assumption that not all scientists agree with, not only creationists.The constancy of physical forces is an observation, not an assumption. What you and dad have now admitted is that every physical law would have to be different in order for creationism to be true. I would have to agree with you guys, but that is also why I and the rest of the scientific community rejects creationism. When you have to change physical laws to reach your conclusion it isn't the physical laws that are flawed, it is your conclusion.
Uniformitarianism is not an observation,