Young Earth Creation as opposed to Old Earth Creation (aka evolution lite)

[Keachian]

This doesn't really prove there were any deception expect for Dawkin's word. Dawkin seem to loves the media attention and just trying to cry fowl when it doesn't go the way he wanted it. It's the same with a movie star or a sport star like Tiger Woods. They alway welcome the media when it in their favor yet the media can come back and bite you.

I'd say that the video quite clearly shows Dawkins getting angry, when you can't answer a question the response isn't normally to get angry.

Oh and here's an answer to the question that was posed to Dawkins:
Dawkins Stumped?!? Let me answer! - YouTube

 

[samaus12345]

I withhold a lot of my comments due to kindness/manners. Its not easy. I will let a little out. Please google "down syndrome" aka trisomy 21 (there are several other trisomies). Look at it. Is that an increase in functional genetic information? If yes please explain your reasoning. The phenotype is the physical traits of an organism. The genotype is its genetic traits. Putting aside the phenotype(s) of trisomy 21/trisomies and looking only at the genotype-it is not new functional information.

Hi how are you going Hi how are you going Hi how are you going Hi how are you going

This is duplications of existing information. There is no new information.It is copies.

Hi how are you going Hi what are you doing Hi where are you going

Here we see an increase in functional information.

 

[Keachian]

I've read many like it through the years. They are all wrong.

Assertions without dealing with the link, cool.

That's correct. If you differ with what God inspired Moses to write as historical then your position is in error. It is a very serious error and there is no excuse for it because the authors of scripture discussed Genesis as historical and literal. They never differentiated characters (Adam, Eve, Seth, Cain, Abel, Enoch, Noah, nor Abraham as compared with David, Solomon, Elijah, Isaiah, Daniel, etc.) as though the early chapters of Genesis were allegorial, symbolical,, etc. and the later O.T. characters as literal and historical. This is why your error & those of like mind with you in that error is so dreadful.

Hold on, where did I ever make the assertion that Adam, Eve, etc. were not historical figures? I have stated my position on Genesis 1-2:4 in this thread. The problem is that you are clearly making a later reading of the text trump what the original would have meant, you are holding on to your modern worldview and understanding of "history" and applying it to the text, as an example of what I mean take the Illiad, in some ways it is both a historical account and a mythological one, this is a properly theistic view of the world, the God(s) are involved in history, now the fact that we consider the Illiad more non-historical myth than non-mythological history does not avoid that it is both intertwined.

Not only so but not only do the scripture shoot down any honest consideration of Darwinian philosophy but the scientific evidences available to all of us favors creationism and the Noahic flood and not evolution. It isn't even close.

When you say Darwinian philosophy are you talking about the philosophical position that God is not involved in the universe? If so I agree with you, God is intimately involved in his creation, scriptures attest that he is. But then you go on to claim scientific evidences, the problem with that is that well before Darwin were we getting long geological time frames from Christian geologists/scientists, not only that Friar Gregor Mendel was the second one to make scientific advances that support the theory of evolution. I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that will lead me to a modern literal-historic reading of Genesis, whether from the natural world or from my study of scripture, it in my mind just doesn't make sense of scripture.

 

[Papias]

Jinx, are you familiar with quote mining? It is simply lying by editing out the context around quotes in ways that obviously mislead. One can do that with video too, as we recently saw in the so called "racist" video.

To see anyone defend this kind of lying is painful, and even worse when those people are Christians. Here, on this thread we have both Jinx and MM defending the practice of lying with this video, in addition to the earlier example of MM plagiarizing (which, to my knowledge, he has not yet apologized for).

This kind of disingenous behavior sets all of us Christians up for ridicule, making it all the harder to reach anyone with the gospel. Here is a clear example, where an atheist blog is using this very video to expose the fact that some Christians seem to have no problem "lying for Jesus".

ARIZONA ATHEIST: Creationist Deception Exposed

We need to be open and honest with everyone, whether we agree with them or not, because that's what Jesus wants, and because that's what works best anyway. That is doubly true in areas where we are not experts and others are.

In His Name-

Papias

 

[Keachian]

I withhold a lot of my comments due to kindness/manners. Its not easy. I will let a little out. Please google "down syndrome" aka trisomy 21 (there are several other trisomies). Look at it. Is that an increase in functional genetic information? If yes please explain your reasoning. The phenotype is the physical traits of an organism. The genotype is its genetic traits. Putting aside the phenotype(s) of trisomy 21/trisomies and looking only at the genotype-it is not new functional information.

Hi how are you going Hi how are you going Hi how are you going Hi how are you going

This is duplications of existing information. There is no new information.It is copies.

Hi how are you going Hi what are you doing Hi where are you going

Here we see an increase in functional information.

The question was about increase in genetic information, not about the increase in functional genetic information, there is a difference. Especially if that's going to be how you define it, two string copies with about ten transpositions, insertions or deletions

 

[samaus12345]

Please watch "From a frog to a prince" on youtube. It contains other segments with Richard Dawkins talking.

www trueorigin org/ca_gb_01 asp


Dots between gaps.

“I will state categorically that the audio tape of the interview 100% supports Gillian Brown's contention that Dawkins couldn't answer the question. Here is the relevant transcript"

To Papias and Progmonk.
Are you open to neodarwinian delusion/hypothesis being wrong and or falsified by science y/n? If no please say so. Thank you.

 

[Keachian]

To Papias and Progmonk.
Are you open to neodarwinian delusion/hypothesis being wrong and or falsified by science y/n? If no please say so. Thank you.

Sure, but it hasn't happened and if it does then I will not default back to creationism. For me the study of how creation works, how God interacts with creation is something which we find through science, not through the Bible.

The statement "God did it" to me is the starting point of scientific inquiry, sure it's ok to just leave it at that, but I think to use a theological text (the Bible) in the arena of science is fundamentally wrong. But that is what we do when we say that the Bible should be read in the modern literal-historic view as opposed to its historical reading, maybe even the reading and meaning that the original author intended and the original audience understood it as.

 

[samaus12345]

Thank you for the repsonse. Do you believe by faith that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"* or do you believe by blind faith that "in the beginning nothing caused nothing to yield the entire observable universe"?

*Creation has documented eye witness testimony from creator of universe himself yawn where as big bang (scientific impossibilities of it aside) has no documented data/history.

 

[NGC 6712]

big bang (scientific impossibilities of it aside) has no documented data/history.

Be careful here - I am about to ask you for proof of these "impossibilities". This is my area of expertise for most of the last 30 years, I do know a few things about this topic.

 

[samaus12345]

It implies NO causation.

 

[NGC 6712]

It implies NO causation.

No it does not. I know people want to imply that but the Big Bang Theory makes no comment about causation one way or the other. None whatsoever.

I get sick and tired of people making this claim no matter what their agenda is.

The Big Bang Theory (in and of itself) was always observationally driven just as Kepler and then Newton took observations to derive planetary orbits and then gravity.

 

[samaus12345]

Ok ive read George Lamaitres original paper of it can you cite others? Thanks.

 

[NGC 6712]

Ok ive read George Lamaitres original paper of it can you cite others? Thanks.

Read the Wikipedia page on it - or Google "Ned Wright Cosmology Tutorial".

Lemaitre is shall we say a tad out of date.

 

[Martyrs44]

Assertions without dealing with the link, cool.

Right. I just get tired of viewing the same old lies over and over again. But if you could convince me there is something there I haven't seen I might be more interested.

Hold on, where did I ever make the assertion that Adam, Eve, etc. were not historical figures? I have stated my position on Genesis 1-2:4 in this thread. The problem is that you are clearly making a later reading of the text trump what the original would have meant, you are holding on to your modern worldview and understanding of "history" and applying it to the text, as an example of what I mean take the Illiad, in some ways it is both a historical account and a mythological one, this is a properly theistic view of the world, the God(s) are involved in history, now the fact that we consider the Illiad more non-historical myth than non-mythological history does not avoid that it is both intertwined.

To compare God's Word and the historical account He gave us through Moses to that of the Illiad tells us exactly where your thinking is. There is no mythology in scripture, the poetic and/or symbolic expressions notwithstanding.

When you say Darwinian philosophy are you talking about the philosophical position that God is not involved in the universe? If so I agree with you, God is intimately involved in his creation, scriptures attest that he is. But then you go on to claim scientific evidences, the problem with that is that well before Darwin were we getting long geological time frames from Christian geologists/scientists, not only that Friar Gregor Mendel was the second one to make scientific advances that support the theory of evolution.

Wrong. Mendel's views do not support evolution at all. Shall I quote his famous 1866 paper to prove that?

I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that will lead me to a modern literal-historic reading of Genesis, whether from the natural world or from my study of scripture, it in my mind just doesn't make sense of scripture.

I see. Never mind the testimony of the prophets, N.T. authors and the Lord Jesus Christ himself who verified the historial accounts of creation, Adam, Eve, the fall of man, the murder of Abel by Cain, the rapture of Enoch, and the flood of Noah. Right?

Quite frankly, you don't care what they said. Your 'theology' is determined by status quo Darwinian thinking. Scripture will always take a back seat for theistic evolutionists who have sold their souls to modern neo-Darwinian philosophy.

 

[Martyrs44]

Sure, but it hasn't happened and if it does then I will not default back to creationism. For me the study of how creation works, how God interacts with creation is something which we find through science, not through the Bible.

The statement "God did it" to me is the starting point of scientific inquiry, sure it's ok to just leave it at that, but I think to use a theological text (the Bible) in the arena of science is fundamentally wrong...

Issac Newton didn't think so. The Bible was his leading guide to scientific discovery. He was by no means the only scientist who felt that way.

 

[samaus12345]

Yes most of the advances in science came from literal genesis believers who understood we live in a highly ordered and logical universe. Not some "cosmic accident". That is interesting about Mendel i kinda felt as if his stuff was held back because of Darwins doctrine. creationDOTcom this is one of the best creation websites defending genesis from the likes of Richard Dawkins's lol.

 

[Metal Minister]

Man: The Image of God - Answers in Genesis[/URL]

and passed it off as your own. That kind of behavior is unfortunately common with creationists, and I expect an apology to myself and everyone here for this plagiarism - especially since you have, in the past, been called on just using websites, and being asked to make your own statements (see post #109 on this thread).

*once again, the almighty papais has spoken for the rest of CF*

I'm not sure it is worth my time to continute this discussion until it is clear to me that you are presenting your ideas in your own words instead of plagiarizing.

Papias

Ok, I will admit, I used that from AIG but plagiarism was not my intent. As I said, it has been difficult to differentiate between our posts, and have taken to copying to my notepad, placing my answers, and then pasting them into a post. On this instance I missed the url in the transfer. If you paid any attention you would have seen the obvious change in writing styles, but as you've done on numerous occasions you tried to attack the messenger rather than refute the message Automatically assuming I'm plagiarising something is not only offensive, it shows how disingenuous you've been about this discussion. So yes, our discussion is done. I'm not going to continue a discussion with someone who would accuse me of something like this without even bothering to find out if it was plagiarism or a simple mistake. Expect to be placed on my ignore list.

 

[Keachian]

Thank you for the repsonse. Do you believe by faith that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"* or do you believe by blind faith that "in the beginning nothing caused nothing to yield the entire observable universe"?

*Creation has documented eye witness testimony from creator of universe himself yawn where as big bang (scientific impossibilities of it aside) has no documented data/history.

Well that's a false dichotomy if there ever was one.

I believe that God created the universe, through the big bang and all that stuff, I believe this by faith and by reason, by faith I say that there is a God and he is both involved in the Universe and created it, by reason and observation I understand how it appears that he has done it.

 

[Metal Minister]

Well that's a false dichotomy if there ever was one.

I believe that God created the universe, through the big bang and all that stuff, I believe this by faith and by reason, by faith I say that there is a God and he is both involved in the Universe and created it, by reason and observation I understand how it appears that he has done it.

I've been meaning to ask you, the bible states God created birds before reptiles, but evolution has reptiles before birds. How do you reconcile that?

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[samaus12345]

The big bang and creation week are both in the unobserved past. Either event must be taken by faith. One has historical data (bible) one doesnt (big bang). Science is here and now, for events in the past we have historical data/man writing things down (which goes back ~6000 years).