How to choose between creation and evolution.

[Brightmoon]

How do you know? Or do you just assume you're older than everyone?



So complimentary. In fact I studied Earth Sciences from the University of Manitoba.

[/QUOTE]. No I’m older than you!
If you studied earth science then you didn’t learn that some geological layers take time to form and won’t form in a roiling flood. Like oolithic limestone has to form in still water . Or that chalk takes a long time to form from the tests of the microscopic organisms that form it. What you’re doing is typical creationist denial - you’re just ignoring inconvenient data

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

. No I’m older than you!
If you studied earth science then you didn’t learn that some geological layers take time to form and won’t form in a roiling flood. Like oolithic limestone has to form in still water . Or that chalk takes a long time to form from the tests of the microscopic organisms that form it. What you’re doing is typical creationist denial - you’re just ignoring inconvenient data[/QUOTE]

The Bible is the truth. Hence, I tend to believe that anything that doesn't seem to align with it isn't truth. In my mind, that's better than what some do - throw doubt on the Bible when it doesn't seem to align with science. I have the firm foundation of God's word.

 

[Brightmoon]

. No I’m older than you!
If you studied earth science then you didn’t learn that some geological layers take time to form and won’t form in a roiling flood. Like oolithic limestone has to form in still water . Or that chalk takes a long time to form from the tests of the microscopic organisms that form it. What you’re doing is typical creationist denial - you’re just ignoring inconvenient data

The Bible is the truth. Hence, I tend to believe that anything that doesn't seem to align with it isn't truth.

. That’s called denial. The bible condones slavery ,do you own slaves ? Bronze Age people lived very different lives and they didnt understand natural phenomena at all. About 500 years ago people started realizing strongly that natural phenomena as described in the bible and reality don’t match. We don’t live in a geocentric universe, the earth isn’t flat, the sky isn’t a hard canopy , and living organisms aren’t created in separated lineages.


Are you a time traveler from the 1400s? If not you’re just in denial

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible is the truth. Hence, I tend to believe that anything that doesn't seem to align with it isn't truth. In my mind, that's better than what some do - throw doubt on the Bible when it doesn't seem to align with science. I have the firm foundation of God's word.

Why believe the Bible to be the truth? How did you test it? We're they proper tests?

You should try to learn how we know that parts of it cannot be taken literally. One of the main reasons for the fall in popularity of Christianity is that kids when they learn the truth about evolution, the age of the Earth, etc drop Christianity because they feel that they have been lied to.

 

[xianghua]

. Speciation is macroevolution

so a cat evolving into a cat is evolution?

 

[xianghua]

I’m a little tired of you repeating that lie about macroevolution not happening. Speciation is macroevolution. Example 1 lions and tigers - genus Panthera they’ve separated so much that while they can mate and produce healthy hybrid offspring, the offspring are infertile. They’ve fully speciated

the fact that they can interbreed prove that they are the same creature and therefore they arent evidence for evolution. again: unless we consider any variation as evolution but in this case even creationists will accept evolution.

 

[pitabread]

so a cat evolving into a cat is evolution?

"Cat" is not a species.

 

[pitabread]

the fact that they can interbreed prove that they are the same creature

You think lions and tigers are the same creature?

Weird.

 

[inquiring mind]

the fact that they can interbreed prove that they are the same creature and therefore they arent evidence for evolution. again: unless we consider any variation as evolution but in this case even creationists will accept evolution.

They know that macroevolution is a leaky vessel, but they have to defend it because they believe everything started from a small gene pool with simple life forms (goo, I guess), and to say otherwise would be agreeing with the Bible. If they could get over that hurdle and accept larger gene pool beginnings (Genesis & Created Kinds), there’d be little to argue about (imo), as microevolution (variations through migration and selection) is sound reasoning for change, but only within those divisions (a horse is a horse, of course).

 

[pitabread]

They know that macroevolution is a leaky vessel, but they have to defend it because they believe everything started from a small gene pool with simple life forms (goo, I guess), and to say otherwise would be agreeing with the Bible.

Uh, no. This may come as a surprise to you, but there are other beliefs out there besides your own and certainly more religious beliefs than just Christianity.

If they could get over that hurdle and accept larger gene pool beginnings (Genesis & Created Kinds)

It comes down to evidence. If you want to make a case for that, you need to bring the evidence.

The problem is the evidence doesn't agree with the creationist position. This was even known prior to Darwin's time.

 

[inquiring mind]

It comes down to evidence. If you want to make a case for that, you need to bring the evidence.

You don't have convincing evidence either. It's a matter of which one is the most logical... you know my choice.

 

[pitabread]

I don't remember what I said exactly, but this is what I was referring to, an excerpt from the AIG article "What are Kinds in Genesis?" 4-16-2013, if you care to read it:

Oh, I'm aware of AiG's position on the subject.

For starters, it contradicts AV1611VET's definition of the word "kind", which speaks to the fact there is no creationist agreement on what is a "kind".

The second issue is that AIG's attempts to define kind are not based in any sort of biological reality. Their primary criteria are simply having a category broad enough to fit a bunch of animals on the literary Ark, and of course not allowing humans to share any "kind" category with any other life.

 

[pitabread]

You don't have convincing evidence either.

The world's biologists disagree with you on that.

It's a matter of which one is the most logical... you know my choice.

In what way is your choice based on logic?

 

[inquiring mind]

For starters, it contradicts AV1611VET's definition of the word "kind", which speaks to the fact there is no creationist agreement on what is a "kind".

I'll let him speak to that, if he wants to.

 

[inquiring mind]

In what way is your choice based on logic?

With the a lack of evidence, and in the same way you do the 'goo to you' logic.

 

[pitabread]

With the a lack of evidence, and in the same way you do the 'goo to you' logic.

"same way you do the 'goo to you' logic" is a nonsensical phrase, so I'm not even sure what you are trying to say.

Insofar as claiming lack of evidence, even if that were true (it's not) that doesn't mean it's logical to believe something else. Especially since the perceived lack of evidence on your part seems to be little more than personal incredulity. And that's an emotional argument at its core.

Doesn't seem like your choice is based on logic.

 

[pitabread]

I'll let him speak to that, if he wants to.

Do you agree with him though? Because he seems to have no issues speaking for other creationists on the subject.

 

[inquiring mind]

Do you agree with him though? Because he seems to have no issues speaking for other creationists on the subject.

I haven’t seen either position stated concisely, but I generally agree with him, yes.

 

[pitabread]

I haven’t seen either position stated concisely, but I generally agree with him, yes.

Then do you disagree with the AiG position? Because the two sources are contradicting each other.

 

[inquiring mind]

Then do you disagree with the AiG position? Because the two sources are contradicting each other.

In what way?