Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[PsychoSarah]

Ignoring the facts does not help your argument.

The problem is, I'm not the one doing the ignoring out of the two of us. I am desperately trying to get you to understand the side of this debate you are going against so you cease to make a fool out of yourself, but you are fighting me tooth and claw over it and stubbornly hold on to an incorrect understanding of these concepts. I am putting my foot down now; I demand that you present peer reviewed sources (no Answers in Genesis or the dishonestly named Evolution News) for your claims on what abiogenesis is all about. Prove to me you are willing to read.

Sadly for that bit of misdirection - we all already know that the whole point of abiogenesis is to bridge the gap between "dust, gas, rock" to Rabbit by getting to some point were blind faith evolutionism "story telling" can get a foothold.

Were we "simply not supposed to notice"???

Look, amino acids are not dirt. They are not gas, they are not rock, they are not dust. They are organic molecules that naturally occur in the environment. If amino acids and proteins are rocks, I guess that makes me an amethyst, since my cell produce vast quantities of them on a daily basis. Amino acids do not have the molecular structure to be considered any of those vague categories you keep pushing. However, I and others just really find it annoying more than anything else that you insist as much, being that it is incorrect, and it isn't too relevant to your criticisms, I suppose. It makes you sound really ignorant when you keep saying "dirt to bunny". Even at best, it is oversimplification to the point that the meaning is entirely lost, like describing the biblical plagues in Egypt as "God destroyed Egypt, and then people left Egypt, our god is good". Would that alone honestly convince anyone that the deity was good? So much vital information is missing in that kind of summary to the point that it misrepresents what it is summarizing and makes it appear really nonsensical and outrageous. Obviously, if all one knew was that a deity destroyed a place, and that people left that place, they would find the conclusion of "our god is good" to make not one lick of sense. That's what you are doing with abiogenesis; you are simplifying to the point of absurdity.

Also, I wish you noticed more, or at least cared to consider what I and others have to say more. I legitimately am trying to help you improve your ability in these debates, because if you keep going as you are, everyone is going to think you are an idiot.

Again - proving my point - it is not the way you are trying to get out of this 'pile of dirt' start for stories about where rabbits come from in the atheist/agnostic world view.

in Christ,

Bob

I said I am capable of defending the creationist position. I never said my own defense of it was more convincing than my defense of evolution, or had superior evidence, just that I am capable of forming arguments for it that aren't complete trash. Mostly for the old earth creationism, though.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Read.

And be "informed" rather than blindly choosing 'The lake of fire option' at every whim.

Nice paper there sir, and hey, look at that, a mention of the 45,000 year old DNA that was in a source I sent to you. This uncertainty is why we only get approximate dates for when mitochondrial Eve and Y-Adam lived, and why it is often given as a range of values. They still aren't static individuals, though, for the reasons I mentioned before. You are correct; mutation rates are nowhere near constant enough to have exact figures on evolutionary dates. However, since mutation rate fluctuates, the farther back you go, the less impact that error has (much like how good years and bad years even out the number of tree rings formed to approximately 1 per year, even though in one given year it can be 2 and another may have none). The range for Y Adam, for example, is between about 200-300 thousand years ago, with just a smidgen of overlap with the range for Mitochondrial Eve (100-200 thousand years ago), so I goofed, it technically is possible with those estimates that they lived at the same time, although unlikely.

Your soul and the soul of your child should be valued "higher than that" bad and uncertain - fiction.

in Christ,

Bob

I don't believe in souls. I did get excited a few times, because people actually try to experiment and discover souls more than deities, but alas, the results were always inconclusive and highly up to interpretation. -_- I would think it was kind of obvious that if I didn't believe in any afterlife, that I probably didn't believe souls existed either. Also, best bet is to cross your fingers and hope belief doesn't matter in the afterlife at all, because if it does, the majority of humanity is going to suffer for something that shouldn't even be considered worthy of punishment. Can I ask a question? How can you view a deity that forces people to burn forever, for any reason, merciful? Eternal torment is the least merciful thing I can think of.

 

[PsychoSarah]

hence the total lack of interest on the part of supposedly "T.E." posters in the salvation of the atheist and agnostic "believers" in blind faith evolutionism.

-_- probably because it is a non sequitur, and posting a bunch of YEC stuff is unlikely to "save" any atheists compared to interpreting the bible non-literally. Perhaps one day I will find faith, but I highly doubt I would ever think a literal biblical interpretation was and accurate representation of reality. Observation just clashes with it too much.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Just no actual "proof" that it is a straw man.

You're saying that evolution claims "from dirt to a rabbit" when evolution makes no such claim. This makes your argument a strawman. You have repeated it after shown to be wrong. That makes you intellectually dishonest.

Rather it shines a very bright light on the most glaring flaw in the religion of blind faith evolutionism and the fact that it is not at all "observable in nature".

First, evolution is not a religion, it is the foundation of biology. Second, you have conceded that faith is a bad thing. I agree. But evolution doesn't require faith. It is supported by an abundance of facts and contradicted by none. Before we can go over examples observed in nature, i'd like to you to explain what you'd expect to see in nature in order to accept evolution. This will demonstrate if you understand evolution or have no idea what you're talking about.

As an atheist you should know better. They have no option at all EXCEPT for "Dirt becomes bunny" given "sufficient amount of dirt" and "sufficient amount of time".

As explained above, this is a strawman. I will save this post as evidence that you have been explained this. If you use this argument again, you will be shown to be intellectually bankrupt and a liar.

Your video asks "could it be that the blow hole is actually a highly modified mammal nose" ??

Yep and then proceeds to explain the answer with several different lines of evidence. I'm not shocked you dishonestly quote minded it and then left everything else out. It's shocking what lengths you'll go to to deliberately lie about the video's content. Isn't that a sin?

The evolutionist needs to "blindly believe" that given a lifeless sterile piece of dirt - the inherent properties of dirt alone -- will result in an apple tree popping up -- "given a sufficient amount of dirt" and a "sufficient amount of time".

Tripling down on this strawman huh Bob? It's quite clear you have zero understanding about what evolution states. You've been fed a strawman and now you're regurgitating it over and over again. Well saying it over and over isn't going to make it true. It just demonstrates how clueless you are about science. The question is, are you willing to quadruple down on this nonsense?

Because you "imagine" that the "blow hole" of the dolphin came from a land mammal's nose???!!!! (as per your video)???

I don't have to imagine it. It's confirmed by the fossil record and DNA evidence. You ignored all of it. You do realize that the majority of Christians accept the theory of evolution? Do you know why? Because its demonstrable true. Creationists are in the science denying minority and are repeatedly mocked throughout the world. Perhaps you should rewatch the video and come back with a more honest response.

 

[Kylie]

Correction - there is "no evidence at all" that a pile of "dirt" - well EVER "turn into a rabbit" - no matter how much "dirt" no matter how much time.

There is a huge amount of evidence for evolution. If you say there isn't, you only demonstrate that you have not bothered researching the topic.

 

[BobRyan]

There is a huge amount of evidence for evolution. When you claim it has no basis in science, you are only demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about.

Correction - there is "no evidence at all" that a pile of "dirt" - well EVER "turn into a rabbit" - no matter how much "dirt" no matter how much time.

It is only blind faith evolutionism - that simply "hopes and believes" that some day dirt will be found to have in it - the inherent properties to "be a rabbit".

There is a huge amount of evidence for evolution. If you say there isn't, you only demonstrate that you have not bothered researching the topic.

Here is evidence from one of your own atheist scientists - a high priest in the religion of evolutionism.

=====================================================

Agnostics may not think much of the OP - but in the OP the question is asked by a Christian regarding the conflict between the Bible and blind-faith-evolutionism.

Patterson noted this --


Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:



Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians

"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"

Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying):'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."


================================================


Patterson (the diehard evolutionist right to the end ) -- at that same meeting -

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff fortwenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."
====================================== end quote

 

[BobRyan]

Niles Eldredge (/ˈɛldrɛdʒ/; born August 25, 1943) is an American biologist and paleontologist, who, along with Stephen Jay Gould, proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in 1972.

"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.


"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."—G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

============================

That is the sort of thing world class scientists were not saying about gravity and thermodynamics in the 1980's and 1950's

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Niles Eldredge (/ˈɛldrɛdʒ/; born August 25, 1943) is an American biologist and paleontologist, who, along with Stephen Jay Gould, proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in 1972.

"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.


"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."—G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

============================

That is the sort of thing world class scientists were not saying about gravity and thermodynamics in the 1980's and 1950's

More dishonest quote mining. Here is the "Quote Mining Project" reference for you. You should use it so you can stop using incredibly dishonest arguments.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/author.html

 

[PsychoSarah]

Niles Eldredge (/ˈɛldrɛdʒ/; born August 25, 1943) is an American biologist and paleontologist, who, along with Stephen Jay Gould, proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in 1972.

"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.


"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."—G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

============================

That is the sort of thing world class scientists were not saying about gravity and thermodynamics in the 1980's and 1950's

1. Quote mine.
2. Both quotes are too old to be significant statements on biology anymore.

 

[BobRyan]

1. Quote mine.

Quote nothing - ignore data.
Not a good enough "tactic" to justify one's children being doomed to a bias toward the lake of fire.

2. Both quotes are too old to be significant

How "old" is blind faith evolutionism??
Not a good enough "tactic" to justify one's children being doomed to a bias toward the lake of fire.

 

[BobRyan]

More dishonest quote mining.

more "quote nothing - ignore data" as the the excuse for clinging to an "uninformed opinion" in favor of the lake of fire?

You are welcome to it. You have free will.

"you can lead a horse to water..."

I am simply giving you the opportunity to be "informed" -- from your own fellow atheist evolutionists.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Quote nothing - ignore data.

Do you know what quote mining means, Bob? It means taking a quote out of context in attempt to support your argument. It's dishonest. "There is no God" I can quote that 12 times in the bible. Is that a good argument on my part? I'm guessing your answer will be "no".

Not a good enough "tactic" to justify one's children being doomed to a bias toward the lake of fire.

Nobody is intimidated by threats, Bob. To me, it's morally reprehensible to threaten someone and their children to eternal torture.

How "old" is blind faith evolutionism??

Evolution has been repeatedly tested and confirmed for over 150 years. You refuse to address any evidence. Did you know human chromosome #2 is a fused chromosome that explains why our ape cousins have 1 more chromosome than us? Did you know that of the 208,000 endogenous retroviruses found in the human genome, only 84 aren't shared with chimps? You can close your eyes and plug your ears all you want, it won't make the facts go away.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Quote nothing - ignore data.
Not a good enough "tactic" to justify one's children being doomed to a bias toward the lake of fire.



How "old" is blind faith evolutionism??
Not a good enough "tactic" to justify one's children being doomed to a bias toward the lake of fire.

Scientific knowledge expands very quickly, so any source older than 10 years is going to be too far behind for its commentary to be up to par. Also, quote mining is basically when people misquote others to make it seem like they said something that they did not, and it is excessively common in the creation vs evolution debate. I don't think you quoted a quote mine on purpose, but I will link you to a site that shows a lot of the common frauds so you don't accidentally use them and make yourself look dishonest. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-1.html all this site does is give the context to the common quote mines. Click the "Next" at the bottom of the page for more. As you can see, Niles Eldredge is a popular person to quote mine (you have to read close to see who the people quoted are).

 

[Hoghead1]

Well, BobR, if there is no evidence that a pile of dirt can be turned into a rabbit, what evidence is there that a pile of dirt or dust could be turned into a man, as per Gen. 2? Also, you are way off on Patterson and what he actually was talking about.

 

[Loudmouth]

you mean... "if you are atheist or agnostic - why believe the creation account in the Bible"??

As someone here has already noted - they don't like the idea of a short meaningless life - but would prefer to live forever.

People said the same thing of Heliocentrism. Seems that people have been able to stay Christian while accepting Heliocentrism.

 

[Loudmouth]

more "quote nothing - ignore data" as the the excuse for clinging to an "uninformed opinion" in favor of the lake of fire?

You are welcome to it. You have free will.

"you can lead a horse to water..."

I am simply giving you the opportunity to be "informed" -- from your own fellow atheist evolutionists.

You don't present data.

You might as well claim that people will go to Hell if they believe that the Earth moves about the Sun.

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If Darwin made an error, feel free to correct it -- assuming of course, someone hasn't already beaten you to it.

Please, and admit Darwin was wrong? Not a chance any evolutionist is going to do that.... But I do notice you sure are trying to avoid your own scientific definitions of species - when they are mating and producing fertile offspring right in front of your eyes....... And do we need to mention that not a single DNA test could differentiate between them? No, that's best left out of any conversation by evolutionists, as are their own scientific definitions. The fact that YOU are unwilling to admit to those mistakes - just shows your lack of concern for any real science at all - as long as you can keep your beliefs intact, that's all that matters to you, whether those beliefs are factual or not. As I said - evolutionists can no longer be trusted, because you won't admit to your own mistakes in little things, let alone big things......

Do I need to correct it when they are mating and producing fertile offspring right in front of your eyes and DNA tests could tell no differences between them? really????

 

[Loudmouth]

Please, and admit Darwin was wrong? Not a chance any evolutionist is going to do that.... But I do notice you sure are trying to avoid your own scientific definitions of species - when they are mating and producing fertile offspring right in front of your eyes.......

Can you show me a chimp and human producing fertile offspring?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Please, and admit Darwin was wrong? Not a chance any evolutionist is going to do that....

So you do it. We'll wait.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Can you show me a chimp and human producing fertile offspring?

Why should I expect them too, they are separate species..... You just proved my point not even realizing it.