So apparently nobody actually believes in creationism.

[Lion Hearted Man]

This is a great video, saw it pop up in my youtube subscriptions. There has been a barren desert of good vids from people like potholer, aronra, and other pro-science/anti-creationist channels.

This is an excellent argument to use against creationists. AV1611VET often succumbed to it, but he kept changing the definitions of words and shifting goalposts so he didn't have to call it "evolution".

 

[Blackwater Babe]

This is a great video, saw it pop up in my youtube subscriptions. There has been a barren desert of good vids from people like potholer, aronra, and other pro-science/anti-creationist channels.

This is an excellent argument to use against creationists. AV1611VET often succumbed to it, but he kept changing the definitions of words and shifting goalposts so he didn't have to call it "evolution".

Is there a reason you're refering to AV in the past tense?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Is there a reason you're refering to AV in the past tense?

I think he was banned from the forum a week or so back.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

I think he was banned from the forum a week or so back.

Huh.

Well in the spirit of not speaking ill of anyone not around to defend him or herself, guess I'll limit myself to a "really?".

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Huh.

Well in the spirit of not speaking ill of anyone not around to defend him or herself, guess I'll limit myself to a "really?".

I'm sure the ban was temporary.

But yeah there were a couple times in the past where he got super close to admitting that macroevolution happens (however he said it was defined), but then he changed his definition. Slippery one, that AV.

This forum has been less lively without him. Hope he comes back.

 

[Doveaman]

Yes as I recall the model they showed required speciation to occur at such a rate it would kill off all the offspring, effectively sterilizing the animals that survived on the arc.

No. The model they show simply require God.

 

[sfs]

1) "Creationist" used to simply mean "one who believes God created everything".

This is not exactly on topic, but do you have data to confirm this statement (which is something I have heard from time to time)? I'm familiar with the traditional use of "creationist" in contrast to "traducianist", but I've never seen an early use in the sense you suggest. My suspicion is that there simply was no need for a word with that meaning, since most people believed that God created everything as a default, and it wasn't an active question.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

No. The model they show simply require God.

And no one to notice and comment on the rapid change. And for the rapid rate of change to suddenly stop at some point previous to my birth, I guess.

 

[Guy1]

No. The model they show simply require God.

Either way you admit evolution took place, so what exactly is your point here?

 

[Doveaman]

Either way you admit evolution took place, so what exactly is your point here?

I'm not denying evolution. I'm denying your brand of evolution, the brand that excludes God's intervention.

What impact would a stick instantly becoming a snake have on the theory of evolution?

Does evolution theory teach us that sticks can evolve into snakes?

 

[Guy1]

I'm not denying evolution. I'm denying your brand of evolution, the brand that excludes God's intervention.

So you're denying the substantiated one for the one for the one you like.

What impact would a stick instantly becoming a snake have on the theory of evolution?

None. But I'm sure biologists, chemists, and physicists would be all over that.

Does evolution theory teach us that sticks can evolve into snakes?

No, it explains how populations of trees would go about turning into snakes, or anything else really, over a period of time.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm not denying evolution. I'm denying your brand of evolution, the brand that excludes God's intervention.

I think "evolution" is a secondary function of natural variation. The main function of natural variation is diversity so that everything is unique. So your spouse is not have to be the splitting image of your parents.

Reading the scriptures, I see no evidence that God approves of natural selection.
And a lot of evidence that He abhors it.

 

[Jro]

I think "evolution" is a secondary function of natural variation. The main function of natural variation is diversity so that everything is unique. So your spouse is not have to be the splitting image of your parents.

Reading the scriptures, I see no evidence that God approves of natural selection.
And a lot of evidence that He abhors it.

So, if there's variation and diversity, and that leads to differential reproductive success, what do you think would happen to the variants that are unsuccessful and the variants that are successful? What do you think a population would look like after several generations?

 

[verysincere]

Reading the scriptures, I see no evidence that God approves of natural selection.
And a lot of evidence that He abhors it.

And yet you didn't mention even ONE of those scriptural evidences.

No surprise there.


.

 

[SkyWriting]

So, if there's variation and diversity, and that leads to differential reproductive success, what do you think would happen to the variants that are unsuccessful and the variants that are successful? What do you think a population would look like after several generations?

You mean if the population demanded a "right" to have unlimited healthcare so that all members would survive to the extent that all the planets resources went to provide reproduction for all with unlimited lifespans?

I can imagine what that will look like. I've had training in such visioning.

 

[SkyWriting]

And yet you didn't mention even ONE of those scriptural evidences.

No surprise there.


.

I've covered it a number of times. Especially for those interested.

 

[Guy1]

I've covered it a number of times. Especially for those interested.

I'm sure one more time couldn't hurt.

 

[verysincere]

I'm sure one more time couldn't hurt.

On the other hand, perhaps it could!

(After all, many such posts here have been positively painful.)


.

 

[Jro]

You mean if the population demanded a "right" to have unlimited healthcare so that all members would survive to the extent that all the planets resources went to provide reproduction for all with unlimited lifespans?

I can imagine what that will look like. I've had training in such visioning.

No that's not what I mean at all.

 

[BobRyan]

Um... yes it does. Want a list of new genes that did not exist in any organism 60 years ago?

Nylon-eating bacteria for instance.

1. I want a list of guys doing complete genome studies 60 years ago. - yes that would be good.

2. I want a list of prokaryotes (bacteria) turning into eukaryotes (single celled animals - like an amoeba).

3. You gave us the example of "bacteria changing diet" -- but the "animals adapting diet" thing was already stated in the Bible. Try something that is not already in the Bible. Bacteria changing diet is not getting you to a eukaryote -- no not in all this time. So why "imagine" success for evolutionism where it is still just "telling stories"??

in Christ,

Bob