A Question Rgarding Embedded Age

[dad]

You are stating the fact in a very distorted manner, but yes, we had ancestors that would look very much like the flat worms of today.

Forget facts, we are merely trying to get you to admit beliefs!

Why do you have a problem with that? You do realize that at one point in your life you did not look terribly different from a flatworm, don't you?

Looks can be deceiving. Name one worm God breathed life into?

And yes, we know that there was no flood. Five miles of water would have left massive evidence.

Cut the canards. Mountain building likely came later.

There is no evidence that points to a large flood.

I disagree. I accept the many stories of floods around the world as evidence, as well as the bible. I find the population numbers highly consistent as well. Everything points to a flood.

 

[justlookinla]

Of course I do. And you use technology that is based upon the facts that I use every day. There is no scientific doubt about whether or not evolution is real. What is being worked on now are the details. There are many Christians who have no problem accepting the theory of evolution. They accept that it is true and that much of Genesis is merely morality stories. Tales to help you to understand the right way to live, not true facts on how the world was made.

Well, yet another misleading and dishonest statement about Christians accepting evolution. Since folks keep making this common less than honest claim, it's time once again to post the truth. There are two forms of evolution, not one, and it's dishonest and intentionally misleading for those to continue to reference evolution as if it's a monolithic view of the creation of the variety and complexity of life we observe today.

The truth is that no Christian holds to the view that all life we observe today is completely and totally the result of natural mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago, i.e., Darwinist creationism. If you can actually give evidence for your claim, please do. Just to let you know though, those who have tried have failed miserably.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, yet another misleading and dishonest statement about Christians accepting evolution. Since folks keep making this common less than honest claim, it's time once again to post the truth. There are two forms of evolution, not one, and it's dishonest and intentionally misleading for those to continue to reference evolution as if it's a monolithic view of the creation of the variety and complexity of life we observe today.

The truth is that no Christian holds to the view that all life we observe today is completely and totally the result of natural mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago, i.e., Darwinist creationism. If you can actually give evidence for your claim, please do. Just to let you know though, those who have tried have failed miserably.

Well if you want to get technical there are all sorts of beliefs about evolution. If someone wants to pretend that a magic skyfather had some hand in the formation of people it does not bother me. You could be a Christian, Muslim, Hindu or countless other religions.

What bothers me is when various religious zealots treat their holy book as a be all and end all. If you accept common descent, which most Christians do and know that Genesis as a whole is a book of myth I have no real problem with you.

So what do you believe and why justlookla? Do you believe the various stories of Genesis or not?

Most Christians accept the theory of evolution and common descent. Some of them want God's hand in it, though they can give no evidence of this. That means a scientist will treat that hand as if it does not exist. I can explain this to you too, and you don't even had to learn your evidence lesson for that one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Forget facts, we are merely trying to get you to admit beliefs!

Yes dad, I can see how facts can be very bothersome for you.

Looks can be deceiving. Name one worm God breathed life into?

Who is this "God" creature. Actually we know that God, as you picture him, did not "breath life" into anything.

Cut the canards. Mountain building likely came later.

Unlike you I do not need to lie. The facts are on my side. Oh wait, you don't like facts.

I disagree. I accept the many stories of floods around the world as evidence, as well as the bible. I find the population numbers highly consistent as well. Everything points to a flood.

Nope, most people live along water sources like rivers. Rivers and other water sources tend to flood. Stories grow with the telling so the story of a gigantic flood is to be expected.

The population argument is extremely foolish. A person worked backwards and incorrectly assumed a constant population growth rate. Second it allows for only about 100 people to make the pyramids and that would have to be the population of almost the whole world. The population argument is one of the most foolish ones that creationists have ever come up with.


Nothing points to a flood. At least nothing of substance.

 

[justlookinla]

Well if you want to get technical there are all sorts of beliefs about evolution. If someone wants to pretend that a magic skyfather had some hand in the formation of people it does not bother me. You could be a Christian, Muslim, Hindu or countless other religions.

What bothers me is when various religious zealots treat their holy book as a be all and end all. If you accept common descent, which most Christians do and know that Genesis as a whole is a book of myth I have no real problem with you.

First, I couldn't care less if you have a problem with me or not, I'm not here to win a popularity contest.

You're typical in attempting to change the focus from the question of the creation impetus for all life we observe today to one of common descent. Those are two completely different issues.

So what do you believe and why justlookla? Do you believe the various stories of Genesis or not?

I believe that God created all of creation, including the universe and life. I believe that the various stories of Genesis are without error and any view that there is error is simply the result of carnal minds attempting to interpret and understand spiritual truths.

Most Christians accept the theory of evolution and common descent.

There you go again. So here I go again. No Christian accepts the Darwinist creationist view that the variety and complexity of life we observe today is completely ,totally, only, solely by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Some of them want God's hand in it, though they can give no evidence of this.

Not some of them, all of them view God's hand in the creation process in one form or another.

That means a scientist will treat that hand as if it does not exist. I can explain this to you too, and you don't even had to learn your evidence lesson for that one.

That means that Darwinist creationism, i.e., the view that all of life we observe today is totally by naturalistic mechanisms, is an inherently atheistic creationist view. Darwinist creationism discards, denies, disallows, dismisses and rejects all views other than the entirely naturalistic view of creation of life (not abiogenesis).

 

[Subduction Zone]

First, I couldn't care less if you have a problem with me or not, I'm not here to win a popularity contest. [Good, now here is a hard question for you: Can you be honest?

You're typical in attempting to change the focus from the question of the creation impetus for all life we observe today to one of common descent. Those are two completely different issues.

How am I trying to change the focus? I said that I did not care if you were wrong within limits, how is that changing the focus?

I believe that God created all of creation, including the universe and life. I believe that the various stories of Genesis are without error and any view that there is error is simply the result of carnal minds attempting to interpret and understand spiritual truths.

So do you believe the story of Adam and Eve? How long ago do you think that was? Don't you know that has been debunked by hard science? I have seen the commercials for Maury Pauvich. He uses that same evidence to say "You ARE the father!"

There you go again. So here I go again. No Christian accepts the Darwinist creationist view that the variety and complexity of life we observe today is completely ,totally, only, solely by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Wrong, I already listed one for dad. I will do the same for you Kenneth Miller is one.

Not some of them, all of them view God's hand in the creation process in one form or another.

Nope. You can't even come close to showing evidence for that claim. That may not be a lie, you may only be horribly self deluded.

That means that Darwinist creationism, i.e., the view that all of life we observe today is totally by naturalistic mechanisms, is an inherently atheistic creationist view. Darwinist creationism discards, denies, disallows, dismisses and rejects all views other than the entirely naturalistic view of creation of life (not abiogenesis).

Please watch your language. I do not want to report you for trolling but I will if this continues. Please use proper terms. I do not insult Christianity by using malicious terms for your beliefs. You should try to do the same.

 

[justlookinla]

First, I couldn't care less if you have a problem with me or not, I'm not here to win a popularity contest. [Good, now here is a hard question for you: Can you be honest?

A hard question? Why would a disparaging and mocking question from you be a hard question?

How am I trying to change the focus? I said that I did not care if you were wrong within limits, how is that changing the focus?

Again. You're attempting to change the focus from the question of the creation impetus for all life we observe today to one of common descent.

So do you believe the story of Adam and Eve? How long ago do you think that was? Don't you know that has been debunked by hard science? I have seen the commercials for Maury Pauvich. He uses that same evidence to say "You ARE the father!"

Stop trying to change the focus.

Are you going to give a smidgen of the "mountain of evidence" you have for all life we observe today to be solely, completely, totally by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago or are you going to keep withholding this information you claim you have?

Wrong, I already listed one for dad. I will do the same for you Kenneth Miller is one.

I find nothing by Miller to suggest that he believes that God was totally and completely absent from the creation process of life we observe today. If you have something to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Nope. You can't even come close to showing evidence for that claim. That may not be a lie, you may only be horribly self deluded.

All I ask for is examples where those who confess Jesus Christ as Lord and savior and creator also deny that God is totally and completely absent from the creation of the complex and varied life form we observe today.

Please watch your language. I do not want to report you for trolling but I will if this continues. Please use proper terms. I do not insult Christianity by using malicious terms for your beliefs. You should try to do the same.

Report whatever you wish, I've been threatened before. My terminology accurately reflects a certain creationist belief system and I will continue to use it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A hard question? Why would a disparaging and mocking question from you be a hard question?



Again. You're attempting to change the focus from the question of the creation impetus for all life we observe today to one of common descent.



Stop trying to change the focus.

Are you going to give a smidgen of the "mountain of evidence" you have for all life we observe today to be solely, completely, totally by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago or are you going to keep withholding this information you claim you have?



I find nothing by Miller to suggest that he believes that God was totally and completely absent from the creation process of life we observe today. If you have something to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing it.



All I ask for is examples where those who confess Jesus Christ as Lord and savior and creator also deny that God is totally and completely absent from the creation of the complex and varied life form we observe today.



Report whatever you wish, I've been threatened before. My terminology accurately reflects a certain creationist belief system and I will continue to use it.

I hate it when replies start to blow up.

Twice you have made an unclear accusation. It seems that you do not understand what evolution is so let me help you on that.

Evolution explains how life got to the diversity we see today. There are many Christians that accept the theory of evolution and see no more need for God to interfere than they see a need for God to interfere with a falling object. The belief in ID is the same as a belief in IF or Intelligent Falling. We can explain how life got to its present state without God just as we can explain how and object falls without invoking God. Parts of the Bible are clearly in error. In fact there are hundreds of errors in the Bible. That alone does not make the message of it meaningless.

Your personal beliefs are not an adequate excuse for trolling and insulting.

And how was my question mocking or disparaging? An honest person would have answered it simply and honestly. Your reply does not bode well for you.

 

[justlookinla]

I hate it when replies start to blow up.

Twice you have made an unclear accusation. It seems that you do not understand what evolution is so let me help you on that.

Apparently you don't understand very simple language. There is a view which embraces the view that all of life we observe today was created, completely, totally, solely by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. This is the issue I'm attempting to discuss.

Evolution explains how life got to the diversity we see today.

A certain view of evolution has a series of guesses and suppositions of how life got to the complexity and variety we see today.

There are many Christians that accept the theory of evolution and see no more need for God to interfere than they see a need for God to interfere with a falling object.

No Christian accepts the creationist view of creation without God.

The belief in ID is the same as a belief in IF or Intelligent Falling. We can explain how life got to its present state without God just as we can explain how and object falls without invoking God.

No you can't. You can offer a series of guesses and suppositions, maybe's, could be's, possibly's, ect, but no evidence, no proof.

Parts of the Bible are clearly in error. In fact there are hundreds of errors in the Bible. That alone does not make the message of it meaningless.

What does this have to do with Darwinist creationism?

Your personal beliefs are not an adequate excuse for trolling and insulting.

I'm not trolling or insulting, I'm attempting to discuss the inherently atheistic creationist viewpoint of Darwinist creationism.

And how was my question mocking or disparaging? An honest person would have answered it simply and honestly. Your reply does not bode well for you.

You said..."Good, now here is a hard question for you: Can you be honest?". You've first demeaned my intelligence and you followed up with a question which wasn't really a question but an attack on my honesty.

I can assure you that your threats nor mocking, nor ridicule will deter me from discussing my view of creationism and evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Apparently you don't understand very simple language. There is a view which embraces the view that all of life we observe today was created, completely, totally, solely by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. This is the issue I'm attempting to discuss.

Then you are conflating evolution and abiogenesis. Two different, but related topics. Evolution has been more than shown to be correct. Abogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage.

A certain view of evolution has a series of guesses and suppositions of how life got to the complexity and variety we see today.[/qute]

Yes, but that is religious evolution, the kind that you seem almost ready to accept. Scientific evolution has no guess or suppositions. Yes, you can quote an article out of context, but quoting something out of context cannot be used to prove your point. I can quote the Bible out of context and get it to say "There is no God". Does that mean the Bible says there is no God? Don't answer that, I will answer for you. Of course not. To get the Bible to say that you have to lie by quoting out of context. Please do not do the same with evolution articles.

No Christian accepts the creationist view of creation without God.

That is because no such idea exists. Many, in fact most Christians accept the theory of evolution where God does not have to keep fiddling with life. Unlike you they do not believe in an incompetent God.

No you can't. You can offer a series of guesses and suppositions, maybe's, could be's, possibly's, ect, but no evidence, no proof.

Please, that is a lie and you should know it. The only reason I will not give evidence is because you have gone back on your word and backed out of an agreement that we had.

What does this have to do with Darwinist creationism?[/qupote]

I have never heard of that. I don't think such an idea exists.

I'm not trolling or insulting, I'm attempting to discuss the inherently atheistic creationist viewpoint of Darwinist creationism.

Actually you are. Again using insulting terminology. I guess you can't argue your points. I can argue mine. Your action is only designed to get the other side mad at you.

You said..."Good, now here is a hard question for you: Can you be honest?". You've first demeaned my intelligence and you followed up with a question which wasn't really a question but an attack on my honesty.

I have noticed that you have not been very honest here. And how did I attack your honesty? Pointing out that you have not been honest is not an attack on your honesty.

I can assure you that your threats nor mocking, nor ridicule will deter me from discussing my view of creationism and evolution.

Good. If you want to discuss evolution why can't you keep your word on a very simple idea? Why do you attempt to insult the other side? Why do you take umbrage when others point out how your actions have not been honest?

 

[justlookinla]

Then you are conflating evolution and abiogenesis. Two different, but related topics. Evolution has been more than shown to be correct. Abogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage.

No, this isn't about abiogenesis.

Once again. There is a creationist view which embraces the view that all of life we observe today is completely, totally, solely by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. This is not about how the first life form was created.

Yes, but that is religious evolution, the kind that you seem almost ready to accept.

No, that's one of the creationist views that some embrace.

Scientific evolution has no guess or suppositions.

The conclusions of the creationist view described above is totally based on guesses and suppositions.

Yes, you can quote an article out of context, but quoting something out of context cannot be used to prove your point.

What are you talking about? What have I quoted out of context?

I can quote the Bible out of context and get it to say "There is no God". Does that mean the Bible says there is no God? Don't answer that, I will answer for you. Of course not. To get the Bible to say that you have to lie by quoting out of context. Please do not do the same with evolution articles.

I'm not.

That is because no such idea exists. Many, in fact most Christians accept the theory of evolution where God does not have to keep fiddling with life. Unlike you they do not believe in an incompetent God.

Whatever level and competency of God one embraces, the fact is that for Christians God is involved at some level and in some way in creation. You've claimed there are Christians who embrace the view of a Godless creation of the complexity and variety of life we observe today, but you've not given any examples with the supporting evidence.

Please, that is a lie and you should know it. The only reason I will not give evidence is because you have gone back on your word and backed out of an agreement that we had.

I haven't backed out of anything. You made an apparently unsupportable claim, your claim that you have "mountains of evidence" for the creationist view which I've alluded to many many many many many many many many times and now you're attempting to deflect the focus from your failure by accusing me falsely.

I have never heard of that. I don't think such an idea exists.

You don't think an idea exists which teaches that all of life we observe today was created totally, completely, only, solely by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago?

Actually you are. Again using insulting terminology. I guess you can't argue your points. I can argue mine. Your action is only designed to get the other side mad at you.

You can't even give a thimble full of the "mountains of evidence" you have for Darwinist creationism.

I have noticed that you have not been very honest here. And how did I attack your honesty? Pointing out that you have not been honest is not an attack on your honesty.

"Pointing out that you have not been honest is not an attack on your honesty."

Amazing, simply amazing.

Good. If you want to discuss evolution why can't you keep your word on a very simple idea? Why do you attempt to insult the other side? Why do you take umbrage when others point out how your actions have not been honest?

You're the guy making baseless claims about evidence, not me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, this isn't about abiogenesis.

Once again. There is a creationist view which embraces the view that all of life we observe today is completely, totally, solely by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. This is not about how the first life form was created.



No, that's one of the creationist views that some embrace.



The conclusions of the creationist view described above is totally based on guesses and suppositions.



What are you talking about? What have I quoted out of context?



I'm not.



Whatever level and competency of God one embraces, the fact is that for Christians God is involved at some level and in some way in creation. You've claimed there are Christians who embrace the view of a Godless creation of the complexity and variety of life we observe today, but you've not given any examples with the supporting evidence.



I haven't backed out of anything. You made an apparently unsupportable claim, your claim that you have "mountains of evidence" for the creationist view which I've alluded to many many many many many many many many times and now you're attempting to deflect the focus from your failure by accusing me falsely.



You don't think an idea exists which teaches that all of life we observe today was created totally, completely, only, solely by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago?



You can't even give a thimble full of the "mountains of evidence" you have for Darwinist creationism.



"Pointing out that you have not been honest is not an attack on your honesty."

Amazing, simply amazing.



You're the guy making baseless claims about evidence, not me.

Truly amazing. You cannot be honest and you cannot answer a question without trying to insult the other side.

That is simply sad.

Those are also the actions of someone that knows he is wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps justloookin needs a clarification. Pointing out to a dishonest person how he has been dishonest is not an "attack on his honesty". If anyone attacked that person's honesty that was done by the person in question himself.

You should have complained that I have questioned your honesty. I did not attack it.

And yes, you have quoted out of context. When you listed all of those phrases that you did not like they were all taken out of context.

 

[justlookinla]

Perhaps justloookin needs a clarification. Pointing out to a dishonest person how he has been dishonest is not an "attack on his honesty". If anyone attacked that person's honesty that was done by the person in question himself.

You should have complained that I have questioned your honesty. I did not attack it.

And yes, you have quoted out of context. When you listed all of those phrases that you did not like they were all taken out of context.

You still haven't provided that "mountain of evidence" you claim to have. You aren't. You know it, I know it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You still haven't provided that "mountain of evidence" you claim to have. You aren't. You know it, I know it.

And that is because you broke your word.

The only reason I would not provide it is if you continue to break your word.

All you have to do to test me is to finish a fairly simple lesson.

Once again here is where you agreed to learn:


http://www.christianforums.com/t7271368-17/

 

[Subduction Zone]

And I found the first post I had in response to justinla. I told him he had to learn what qualifies as evidence then:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7271368-16/#post65821040

So far I have been true to my word. justinla refuses to participate in a very simple lesson and as a result I will not give him any evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

And that is because you broke your word.

I haven't broken anything. You made an apparently false claim, you are the person who must deal with that.

The only reason I would not provide it is if you continue to break your word.

I haven't broken anything, you've failed to provide this 'mountains of evidence' for quite a while now.

All you have to do to test me is to finish a fairly simple lesson.

Once again here is where you agreed to learn:


http://www.christianforums.com/t7271368-17/

Post the conversation. Point out the issue you're having. You're simply grasping at straws in an attempt to negate your false claim. I've tested you for many posts now and you've received a failing grade for following through on a claim you made.

 

[justlookinla]

And I found the first post I had in response to justinla. I told him he had to learn what qualifies as evidence then:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7271368-16/#post65821040

So far I have been true to my word. justinla refuses to participate in a very simple lesson and as a result I will not give him any evidence.

No, you have not been true to your word. Your word said you had 'mountains of evidence'. You've apparently made a false claim.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, you have not been true to your word. Your word said you had 'mountains of evidence'. You've apparently made a false claim.

The order was clear, you figure out what you consider evidence to be, and then SZ presents the evidence he has. Not the other way around

 

[justlookinla]

The order was clear, you figure out what you consider evidence to be, and then SZ presents the evidence he has. Not the other way around

No, not true. The claim was made that he had 'mountains of evidence', then he immediately started equivocating. The request is simple, provide the evidence. Then it's up to me to accept or reject it.

It's not going to be provided.