The best evidence for Creationism

[SkyWriting]

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but are you saying cannibalism should be ok?

May God Richly Bless You! MM

One should always follow through on ones logic, which is what I was doing.
Evidently we are not the same as animals because this bothers people.
Next thing you know people are going to support birth control rather than
reproducing as much as the environment allows for.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm not saying there is, I'm specifically tying the doctrine of us being in the Image of God to the Cross, so it basically boils down to which animals do you think qualify to be in the Image of God apart from humans.

No animals qualify. They are just food. And they have no sin. So theologically speaking, the difference is 100% different between animals and man.

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't say that anything other than the animal of man qualifies for being in the Image of God. I was merely trying to point out to SkyWriting that to continue to question about my linking of the Cross with the doctrine of Imago Dei while holding the creation of man and animals in a literal/semi-literal sense of them being created in identical ways calls the idea that only man is Imago Dei.

The only connection between man and animals is that we both have physical bodies. Many of God's creations don't.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not even close, LM!!

You stated that differences refute common ancestry. Are you going back on this now?

 

[diychristian]

I would say the Kalam Cosmological argument as put forth by William Lane Craig to be rather convincing. It seems axiomatic that there was a beginning. It seems logical that something can't be its own cause so something outside of space and time must have caused or created us. CREATIONIST

 

[USincognito]

I would say the Kalam Cosmological argument as put forth by William Lane Craig to be rather convincing. It seems axiomatic that there was a beginning. It seems logical that something can't be its own cause so something outside of space and time must have caused or created us. CREATIONIST

That's not quite what the OP was asking for. Every religious person who accepts standard science is a "creationist". What the OP was asking for was evidence of Creationism.

 

[mkatzwork]

I would say the Kalam Cosmological argument as put forth by William Lane Craig to be rather convincing. It seems axiomatic that there was a beginning. It seems logical that something can't be its own cause so something outside of space and time must have caused or created us. CREATIONIST

You should read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason for the counter-argument, its nothing more than a reformulated ontological argument - nothing new.

 

[Lillen]

I don't know if these evidence are valid to you. But there is a reason why ants do not run a intelligence agency, peace movement, or suprem court for that matter. Humans do. Were did we get the intellect from??

 

[diychristian]

What about the mkatzwork counter argument?

 

[Moe90]

What, in your opinion, is the best evidence for Creationism? Also, say whether you're an evolutionist or a Creationist.

Quran/bible, because of course, it's the only visible "evidence".

 

[Belk]

I don't know if these evidence are valid to you. But there is a reason why ants do not run a intelligence agency, peace movement, or suprem court for that matter. Humans do. Were did we get the intellect from??

From our larger and more complex brains that we evolved. Mostly from the development of our prefrontal cortex which allows us abstract thought.

Prefrontal cortex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Inan3]

Quran/bible, because of course, it's the only visible "evidence".

Not so, "I" am evidence!

 

[Inan3]

Here comes the "truth" again. If only I had a penny for every "truth" out there, I would be a billionaire!

Wouldn't we all!

 

[Inan3]

You stated that differences refute common ancestry. Are you going back on this now?

No, I did not, LM. This is what I said.

Originally Posted by Inan3
"I realize that but to say that apes and humans have the same ancestor because of a few likenesses and then to ignore and neglect how VAST the differences are is naive to say the least and deceptive at most. More important to the case of evolution being untrue is all the data and information that is excluded rather than that that is included."


I was saying that to ignore or exclude data and information which would falsify evolutionary theory is naive and deceptive.

 

[Inan3]

In your opinion. What, to you, is the biggest difference?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7659884-4/#post60897890

 

[Loudmouth]

I was saying that to ignore or exclude data and information which would falsify evolutionary theory is naive and deceptive.

How do differences between humans and other apes falsify evolutionary theory? The whole point of the theory is to explain WHY SPECIES ARE DIFFERENT. Evolution is change over time. You are trying to say that observing change falsifies evolution. That makes no sense.

On top of that, the differences aren't even vast. They are miniscule. We are talking about a 2% difference where base substitutions are concerned. The commonalities are what humans and chimps inherited from their common ancestor. The differences are what evolved in each lineage. That is how evolution works.

 

[diychristian]

How do differences between humans and other apes falsify evolutionary theory? The whole point of the theory is to explain WHY SPECIES ARE DIFFERENT. Evolution is change over time. You are trying to say that observing change falsifies evolution. That makes no sense.

On top of that, the differences aren't even vast. They are miniscule. We are talking about a 2% difference where base substitutions are concerned. The commonalities are what humans and chimps inherited from their common ancestor. The differences are what evolved in each lineage. That is how evolution works.

There are many phenotypical differences between man and chimp (hips and neck). Our immune systems react quite differently. Probably the biggest differences are in gene expression.

Does observing change prove evolution? or just simple adaptation? I think only adaptation. It seems like a jump to evolution.

 

[Gracchus]

Does observing change prove evolution? or just simple adaptation? I think only adaptation. It seems like a jump to evolution.

Adaptation is what organisms do, usually by changing their behavior. Evolution is what species do, by change of genome.

If you can learn to make that distinction, you might come off as not quite so ... confused.

 

[diychristian]

Adaptation is what organisms do, usually by changing their behavior. Evolution is what species do, by change of genome.

If you can learn to make that distinction, you might come off as not quite so ... confused.

So if I change my behavior can I adapt like a peppered moth?

"Evolution" is something that happens when something goes wrong in the cell is selected by its environment (if it is selected). The mutation is preserved if it is further selected by the population and allowed to reproduce. What is gained is often at a price (loss of previously existing trait) this is sometimes referred to as genetic degradation. It can take thousands of years for a population to remove a negative mutation (much too much time for the evolutionary time frame for ape to man evolution).

 

[Loudmouth]

So if I change my behavior can I adapt like a peppered moth?

Do you have to change your DNA to change your behavior?

"Evolution" is something that happens when something goes wrong in the cell is selected by its environment (if it is selected). The mutation is preserved if it is further selected by the population and allowed to reproduce. What is gained is often at a price (loss of previously existing trait) this is sometimes referred to as genetic degradation. It can take thousands of years for a population to remove a negative mutation (much too much time for the evolutionary time frame for ape to man evolution).

Why would a harmful mutation be selected for by natural selection? Please explain.