Who is Mr Darwin?

[AV1611VET]

You think people worship words?

God's creation.

Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can call just about anything "peanut butter" -- but that doesn't make it so.

It has to have it on it's [belt buckle] first, right?

Unless, of course, words like "science" have meanings that you might or might not know or care about -- and ignoring this fact in favor of pointless word games are characteristic of the Creationist side of the discussion.

We're not the ones who pluto "child" to "fetus" or "miracles" to "magic" or "abomination" to "lifestyle".

 

[BPPLEE]

And how did Moses know what to write, AV?

All that time he spent with God I suppose. But people believe differently about how that account came to be

 

[BPPLEE]

Go ahead if you wish.
For a quick yes or no, do you think the snake bite story is
believable?

I know people who have been bitten by venomous snakes and survived. I used to be a surveyor it happened more than once so I don't see why that story would be so unbelievable

 

[Tinker Grey]

I know people who have been bitten by venomous snakes and survived. I used to be a surveyor it happened more than once so I don't see why that story would be so unbelievable

Because Malta has no snakes that are dangerous to humans. The cat snake is venomous but it's fangs are positioned such that it not a risk for humans. 2) This snake didn't make it to Malta until WWI.

The Snakes in Malta – did you know that one species is venomous?? -02/05/2020 | The Cliffs

 

[AV1611VET]

Because Malta has no snakes that are dangerous to humans.

Acts 28:3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.

Macrovipera

 

[BPPLEE]

Because Malta has no snakes that are dangerous to humans. The cat snake is venomous but it's fangs are positioned such that it not a risk for humans. 2) This snake didn't make it to Malta until WWI.

The Snakes in Malta – did you know that one species is venomous?? -02/05/2020 | The Cliffs

St. Paul and the Malta Snakes Still hard to explain but not unexplainable

 

[BPPLEE]

Acts 28:3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.

Macrovipera

St. Paul and the Malta Snakes not unexplainable

 

[Tinker Grey]

St. Paul and the Malta Snakes not unexplainable

That's cuz there's nothing to explain. There were no snakes on Malta. The snakes that are there now were brought century's later.

Also, that website doesn't explain anything. It just says "It could have been X".

 

[BPPLEE]

That's cuz there's nothing to explain. There were no snakes on Malta. The snakes that are there now were brought century's later.

Also, that website doesn't explain anything. It just says "It could have been X".

It could have been x it was 2000 years ago. I understand what the controversy is now though thanks for explaining

 

[Tinker Grey]

It could have been x it was 2000 years ago. I understand what the controversy is now though thanks for explaining

No problem. (N.b., of course, I don't speak for @Estrid.)

 

[BPPLEE]

No problem. (N.b., of course, I don't speak for @Estrid.)

Haha I understand

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

Why do you think evolutionary biology is not science? How does it differ from other branches of science?

Do you mean why do I think it is irrational to use the word, "science," to refer to Darwinism? For my part, I would have insurmountable difficulty bringing myself to using the word, "science," to refer to stuff that is irrational, false, and nonsensical—and so, naturally, it follows that I could never apply it to Darwinism, or what you call "evolutionary biology".

BTW, observe your phrase, "evolutionary biology," there, and consider this popular slogan coined by a professional Darwinism huckster:

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."​

Why did the author of that slogan choose to say "biology," and choose to not say, instead, "evolutionary biology"? That is, why did he choose to not say

"Nothing in [evolutionary biology] makes sense except in the light of evolution"?​

And, why did he choose to say "evolution," and choose to not say, instead, "evolutionary biology," as follows?

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of [evolutionary biology]."​

And, notice that he chose to not say,

"Nothing in [evolutionary biology] makes sense except in the light of [evolutionary biology]."​

Why would a Darwinist choose to not say that?

​

 

[AV1611VET]

St. Paul and the Malta Snakes not unexplainable

That site about covers all the possible explanations!

 

[AV1611VET]

That's cuz there's nothing to explain. There were no snakes on Malta.

Uzair werya?

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

It would be fascinating if Creationists had scientific evidence to support their ideas... but they are never able present it.

Evolution has fossils, genetics, observed speciation and applied science in other fields.

Creation only presents religious conviction and personal emotional preferences, at best.

But if I've missed actual scientific evidence for the Creation side, I'd be super happy to see it... ID and the supernatural is more interesting than known reality.

"It would be fascinating if Creationists had scientific evidence to support their ideas... but they are never able present it."

Wait...don't you say that anti-Creationists such as yourself have "evidence to support" your anti-Creationism?

Creationists affirm the proposition that God created man, whereas anti-Creationists affirm the proposition that God did not create man, no? Now, this pair of propositions—

P: God created man
~P: God did not create man​

—is a pair of contradictories, which means that one of them must be true and one of them must be false. Do not anti-Creationists (such as Darwinists) say they have "evidence to support" the proposition they like, namely ~P? And do not anti-Creationists affirm that ~P is true, and that P is false?

So, the question is: Since you, being an anti-Creationist, claim that ~P is true, and claim that you have what you call "evidence to support" ~P, why, then, would you go around complaining that Creationists "are never able to present" anything you would be willing to call "evidence to support" P?

Here's what you're saying: "It would be fascinating if Creationists had scientific evidence to support [a proposition I, being an anti-Creationist, consider to be false]... but they are never able present it."

Can evidence support propositions that are false? Yes or No?

 

[TLK Valentine]

God's creation.

Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

That doesn't answer my question. Was it a legitimate attempt to do so?

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

You think people worship words?

You think people are choices?

 

[TLK Valentine]

It has to have it on it's [belt buckle] first, right?

Neither know nor care what you're trying to make a "clever" reference to here.

We're not the ones who pluto "child" to "fetus" or "miracles" to "magic" or "abomination" to "lifestyle".

Yeah, you kind of are, if you stop to think about it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That is, what Darwinists choose to call "science" while cheerleading for their Darwinism. Hey, did you know that anyone and everyone can call anything and everything "science" that he/she would like to call "science"? So, yeah....calling Darwinism/evolutionism "science" is an essentially useless ploy for the Darwinist when they are talking to critics of Darwinism; the only use it might have in any creation vs evolutionism debate is as a sort of "high-five" to fellow evolutionists in the audience. IOW, it has merely whatever (if any) value there is in preaching to the Darwinist choir.

Evolution is a science, not an "ism". It is not a philosophy or a religion. Evolution follows the scientific methods. It is not based on the founding ideas of one person or one book. People who study evolution professionally are evolutionary biologists (and sometimes call themselves "evolutionists", but they don't practice "evolutionism"). People who accept evolution as the best available theory of the origin of species don't have a group name. (And it is definitely not "Darwinists".)

 

[TLK Valentine]

You think people are choices?

I'm sorry; were you addressing another post that you mistook for mine?