- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,055
- 52,628
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
A Question for Creationists
- Thread starter Archaeopteryx
- Start date
- Status
F
frogman2x
Guest
If it was seman it would be called seman. There is no biological reason to teaqch sex by usisng birds and bees.
I have not called you anti-Christian. Most Christian pastors do not understand biology which is necessary to try and explain evolution. Most conservative Christian pastors reject evolution. To say that most creationists do not understand science is arrogant and self serving. You are suggesting we are not inntellectual capable of understanding it becasue we do not accept as true evidence , what you accept as evidence. Let me suggest the scientist as the ICR understnd it much better than you do and they reject it.
I agree and it not worth the effort fo me to backtrack to find it.
Upvote
0
He didn't say it was sperm. He said they were similar. Pollen is basically the plant version of sperm - that doesn't mean it IS sperm, only that it serves a similar purpose.
Ignoring that you provide nothing to back up these claims, that pastors reject a theory that even you admit they don't understand hardly means much of anything.
It's a statement based on a wealth of evidence.
Your opinion is based on absolutely NOTHING. When did 'evolutionists' make this change? How exactly did they do it? It was never a recognized scientific term. Can you provide any source that gives a consistent definition for it, one that all creationist sources abide by?
Upvote
0
An apple falling off a tree tells us absolutely nothing about gravity. It's an observation, but people have been observing things fall forever. The theory of gravity is not just 'things fall down'.
Upvote
0
How can you say Santa Claus doesn't hold up to the same scrutiny as the Christian god?
There are numerous tales of Santa. The authors of these stories were divinely inspired when Santa filled them with HIS holy spirit, and guided their thoughts to write HIS word!
Santa even filled St. Nicholas, a real verifiable person, with HIS holy spirit.
Finally, Santa fills HIS chosen people (those with money), with HIS holy spirit over the Christmas holidays. That is why they buy presents at Christmas.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,055
- 52,628
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Have you ever seen Santa Claus compared to Jesus Christ?
It's a real eye opener.
We call that diabolical mimicry.
Upvote
0
I don't usually like to make that comparison. Santa has never committed or advocated genocide, slavery, murder, misogyny, etc., unlike the Christian god.
"diabolical mimicry"? How is Santa diabolical?
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,055
- 52,628
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
You don't have to.
Others have done it for you.
You just have to either agree or disagree with it; and to disagree with it shows a lack of comprehension.
Neither has God.
That would fall under your interpretation of His actions.
Yes ... twin sister of "diabolical plagiarism."
It's a real eye-opener.
Upvote
0
I just spent over two hours responding to this post, and the site gave me an error message (I think it may have been due to a timeout). After I calm down, I'll try again. I will do it in several smaller posts, and I will not be quoting this post because half of froggy's responses did not show up, because he used the quote tags incorrectly (one of the things that slowed me down).
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Actually the God of the Bible advocated genocide many times over. You even believe that he did so. There is on case that should stand out in your mind. Your God knew he screwed up so badly afterwards that he promised not to do it again. That was only the first and worst time. We can get into other times that your God advocated genocide later on.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,055
- 52,628
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I don't know if you ever watched The Invaders; but if you did, did David Vincent push for genocide?
I suspect you guys are misusing a good word (as usual).
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Nope never saw it. Does it matter? And no, we are not misusing a good word. There is no doubt that the God of the Bible is a very immoral god.
Upvote
0
Post 1 in response to froggy
Pollen is produced in the stamens of male flowers, and is transferred to the pistals of female flowers (Many flowers ar hermaphroditic, with both stamens and pistals. Most however do not self-pollinate.) Eggs in the ovaries at the base of the pital are fertilized and are encased in a seed with food and a protective covering, just as fertilized bird and reptile eggs are encased in a protective shell with food. Sex education is often called "the birds and the bees" because small birds and insects, especially bees, carry the pollen from one flower to the next enabling the fertilization.
I never claimed or implied Creationists were incapable of learning the truth. If I thought that, I would have long ago given up trying to reach you and show you the truth. I do beleive that you are uneducated in science, and therefore ignorant, but both are conditions that can be fixed with just a little study and a lot of patience. Everybody is uneducated and ignorant until they learn. I do wonder, though, what your high school was doing when most were teaching the sciences. My high school taught physics, chemistry, and biology. And all three had labs, to give us practical experience, and to let us verify for ourselves what was in the textbooks.
Just as you don't recognize the names of the Creationists I mentioned, I did not recognize the ICR or most of its staff. Unlike you, when someone brings up something I don't recognize, I look it up Google and Wikipedia are your friends. So now I know that ICR is the Institute for Creation Research, founded by Henry Morris, whom I have heard of. He is one of the first of the professional Creationist con men to have been exposed. Even most other Creationist istituteions have distanced themselves from his teachings.
Pollen is produced in the stamens of male flowers, and is transferred to the pistals of female flowers (Many flowers ar hermaphroditic, with both stamens and pistals. Most however do not self-pollinate.) Eggs in the ovaries at the base of the pital are fertilized and are encased in a seed with food and a protective covering, just as fertilized bird and reptile eggs are encased in a protective shell with food. Sex education is often called "the birds and the bees" because small birds and insects, especially bees, carry the pollen from one flower to the next enabling the fertilization.
I never claimed or implied Creationists were incapable of learning the truth. If I thought that, I would have long ago given up trying to reach you and show you the truth. I do beleive that you are uneducated in science, and therefore ignorant, but both are conditions that can be fixed with just a little study and a lot of patience. Everybody is uneducated and ignorant until they learn. I do wonder, though, what your high school was doing when most were teaching the sciences. My high school taught physics, chemistry, and biology. And all three had labs, to give us practical experience, and to let us verify for ourselves what was in the textbooks.
Just as you don't recognize the names of the Creationists I mentioned, I did not recognize the ICR or most of its staff. Unlike you, when someone brings up something I don't recognize, I look it up Google and Wikipedia are your friends. So now I know that ICR is the Institute for Creation Research, founded by Henry Morris, whom I have heard of. He is one of the first of the professional Creationist con men to have been exposed. Even most other Creationist istituteions have distanced themselves from his teachings.
Upvote
0
Post 2 in response to froggy
Natural Selection is not proven in the mathematical/logical sense. It is not the conclusion of a syllogism. But it is "proven" in the more colloquial sense of "proven in a court of evidence." It is clearly observed that populations adapt to different environments. You, yourself, admit later in this post that "it is obvious and can be biologically proven through observation" that populations adapt. Two different hypotheses were proposed as to how they adapt. Lamark proposed a mechanism wereby incidental changes (such as hormonal changes or muscle development through exercise were somehow made permanent and passed on to the offspring. That did not survive the tests made to disprove it. The other relied on the study of genetics and how genes are passed on. In this model, more rabbits in Minnesota with heavy winter coats survive the harsh winters to breed in the spring, where more rabbits in Florida with heavy winter coats died of heatstroke, so there were more rabbits with lighter winter coats to breed in the spring. Every year more Minnesota rabbits have heavy coats, and more Florida rabbits have lighter coats. The two rabbit populations adapted to the two climates. This process, this explanation for adaptation is called Natural Selection.
Scientists have created mutations in radishes, turnips, mustard and other plants, mostly related to kale. Unlike the simple mutations in nature, these mutations change the DNA of the plant so much that it can't breed with the parent plant*. But if they take a mutated mustard plant and a mutated turnip, and force a second mutation, one that instead of changing any of the genes, just doubles the DNA, the mutated turnip can breed with the mutated mustard, and the resultant plant breeds true. It is nothing like the original turnip, nothing like the original mustard, ad different from the mutated versions, too. It is a brand new, never before seen species.
The age of Henry Morris' teachings are showing. Most creationists gave up on the kind = species equivalency decades ago.(Evolutionists simply do not use the word kind, except when Creationists insist, and even then only because the Creationists make a distinction between species and kind.)
The Creationists had to give it up. Partly because they could no longer deny that sometimes species split into two or more populations which develop into separate species. And partly because they realized that even giving the largest reasonable estimate for the size of a cubit, Noah's Ark was far too small to carry representatives of every known species. Almost every creationist will admit that not only are grey wolves and (domesticated) dogs the same kind, but so are all other species of true wolf and even coyotes. Many will even include other canine groups, such as foxes and jackals. Likewise, they agree that all Great cats are one kind, and may be one kind with the smaller cats.
Natural Selection is not proven in the mathematical/logical sense. It is not the conclusion of a syllogism. But it is "proven" in the more colloquial sense of "proven in a court of evidence." It is clearly observed that populations adapt to different environments. You, yourself, admit later in this post that "it is obvious and can be biologically proven through observation" that populations adapt. Two different hypotheses were proposed as to how they adapt. Lamark proposed a mechanism wereby incidental changes (such as hormonal changes or muscle development through exercise were somehow made permanent and passed on to the offspring. That did not survive the tests made to disprove it. The other relied on the study of genetics and how genes are passed on. In this model, more rabbits in Minnesota with heavy winter coats survive the harsh winters to breed in the spring, where more rabbits in Florida with heavy winter coats died of heatstroke, so there were more rabbits with lighter winter coats to breed in the spring. Every year more Minnesota rabbits have heavy coats, and more Florida rabbits have lighter coats. The two rabbit populations adapted to the two climates. This process, this explanation for adaptation is called Natural Selection.
Scientists have created mutations in radishes, turnips, mustard and other plants, mostly related to kale. Unlike the simple mutations in nature, these mutations change the DNA of the plant so much that it can't breed with the parent plant*. But if they take a mutated mustard plant and a mutated turnip, and force a second mutation, one that instead of changing any of the genes, just doubles the DNA, the mutated turnip can breed with the mutated mustard, and the resultant plant breeds true. It is nothing like the original turnip, nothing like the original mustard, ad different from the mutated versions, too. It is a brand new, never before seen species.
The age of Henry Morris' teachings are showing. Most creationists gave up on the kind = species equivalency decades ago.(Evolutionists simply do not use the word kind, except when Creationists insist, and even then only because the Creationists make a distinction between species and kind.)
The Creationists had to give it up. Partly because they could no longer deny that sometimes species split into two or more populations which develop into separate species. And partly because they realized that even giving the largest reasonable estimate for the size of a cubit, Noah's Ark was far too small to carry representatives of every known species. Almost every creationist will admit that not only are grey wolves and (domesticated) dogs the same kind, but so are all other species of true wolf and even coyotes. Many will even include other canine groups, such as foxes and jackals. Likewise, they agree that all Great cats are one kind, and may be one kind with the smaller cats.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,055
- 52,628
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Post 3 in response to froggy
Evolution does not require that all life descended from one common ancestor, but the fossil record, and the genome projects (which map out the complete DNA of different species and compare them) and several other methods all suggest the same family tree for all multi-cellular organisms. (There is a little confusion in placing some one-celled organisms in their proper places on the tree. That could suggest that some of them don't belong on the tree, being separate manifestations of life, but it is more likely that it is because they swap DNA non-sexually, something they have been observed doing.
Still, as a Christian, I do believe in God. I believe He created and sustains the Universe. Because of this, I believe that "Last Thursdayism" cannot be entirely ruled out. Last Thursdayism is the idea that God created the Universe, fully functional and fully functioning relatively recently, and that that creation included false memories and physical evidence to seemlessly match exactly what we would expect if our memories and pre-existing ideas of science were truly in our history. It is a form of Special Creation. The "literal Biblical" Creationism of most Christian Creationists is a specific form of Last Thursdayism, and is very unlikely. Still, if the Bible taught that it was the "Gospel truth," I would be willing to accept it.
But Genesis One gives one account of the Creation, and Genesis 2 gives a different one. The two can be reconciled, but only by making major interpretations of the meaning of Genesis 2. And then, there is the fact that Genesis One is mythopoetic. The poetry is clear even in English translation, what with the repeated refrains "And God saw the. ... and it was Good," and "It was evening and morning the. ... day."
Evolution does not require that all life descended from one common ancestor, but the fossil record, and the genome projects (which map out the complete DNA of different species and compare them) and several other methods all suggest the same family tree for all multi-cellular organisms. (There is a little confusion in placing some one-celled organisms in their proper places on the tree. That could suggest that some of them don't belong on the tree, being separate manifestations of life, but it is more likely that it is because they swap DNA non-sexually, something they have been observed doing.
Still, as a Christian, I do believe in God. I believe He created and sustains the Universe. Because of this, I believe that "Last Thursdayism" cannot be entirely ruled out. Last Thursdayism is the idea that God created the Universe, fully functional and fully functioning relatively recently, and that that creation included false memories and physical evidence to seemlessly match exactly what we would expect if our memories and pre-existing ideas of science were truly in our history. It is a form of Special Creation. The "literal Biblical" Creationism of most Christian Creationists is a specific form of Last Thursdayism, and is very unlikely. Still, if the Bible taught that it was the "Gospel truth," I would be willing to accept it.
But Genesis One gives one account of the Creation, and Genesis 2 gives a different one. The two can be reconciled, but only by making major interpretations of the meaning of Genesis 2. And then, there is the fact that Genesis One is mythopoetic. The poetry is clear even in English translation, what with the repeated refrains "And God saw the. ... and it was Good," and "It was evening and morning the. ... day."
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Not according to the Bible. And not according to me either.
Why are you trying to change the topic?
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,055
- 52,628
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Because I'm done with the old topic; unless you have something new to add.
You're already a QED of what I've been saying for years:
When it comes to creationism, if you can't understanding NOTHING, you won't understanding ANYTHING.
ETA: Oops! Sorry! My bad! I'm in the wrong thread.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
