Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[Subduction Zone]

No, you clearly get excited by being degrading to people. Perhaps if you dialed back the ego about 20 clicks, things would seem different.

No, no one is degrading you. That would be against the rules. You are simply making very very poor arguments. You are resenting the fact that you are wrong and are unable to argue properly Ego is not involved in this.

As I said, we would probably get excited if you actually tried to learn. People would bend over backwards to help you.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Are you consol ?

Epiphany, Alfred is your Smiley.

 

[Astrid]

Yall should ask yourselves why this was what evolution used to teach before it was apparently debunked. Why does evolution always shift the goalposts when Christians and skeptics of evolution prove what they say as wrong as the theory becomes more refined. It's like they refine the theory of evolution only in order to make it more believable. The truth doesn't need that treatment.

Now it's me who has no idea what you are talkingvabout.
It's nothing to do with what I said, and it's all vague generalities
with no reference to anything.

 

[Mr Laurier]

You legit say what I said is wrong, then proceed to say what I was trying to say, haha. I think some folks just get excitable by the idea of winning an argument. And that is not what I sound like.

Huh?
Ok. What do you think evolution is?

 

[Bradskii]

You legit say what I said is wrong, then proceed to say what I was trying to say, haha. I think some folks just get excitable by the idea of winning an argument. And that is not what I sound like.

I've got a barrel on my deck. I may take the top off later, fill it with fish and shoot some of them. Just for fun.

But I'd much rather answer any sensible questions that you had about the topic in hand.

 

[FredVB]

I agree that one can be saved and believe that God was that starter of evolution/big bang. I do not hold to that, though. Out of all the branches of science I've studied, there are several that take note as having a lot of false info propagated within them, there is a lot of false information in this world held on a pedestal. Once you see how certain branches of science misinterpret the data either on purpose or accidentally [via steps they follow as part of the process] you start becoming skeptical of the infallibility of modern day, agenda and money-driven science.

For example, climate alarmism is probably the very most obvious example [or perhaps the pharmaceutical industry studies] that show just because something that was peer reviewed comes out, doesn't mean it is accurate at all. When scientists find results contradictory to the agenda at hand given by the funders of most of the research projects, they find themseves without a job, blackballed. There are many folks with degrees in said field who explain their field is like a club, and if you're the odd man out, good luck finding work in that field. How many other branches of science could that be happening in?

I would not argue against the creationist perspective, but you are not making any winning argument for it with referring to climate alarmist, a term of denial of the overwhelming evidence climate scientists by and large agree is there, with it directly connected with activities of human societies using what we are using. Calling this inaccurate does nothing for me to agree about the support of creationism. I messaged much the same thing to what is supposed to be a creationist site, where a dismissive article there on the climate issue was far outside what expertise they claim. At least I still know, recognizing that whether there was natural processes without any guidance, and evolution, or there was creation from the supreme being, is a matter of faith (not necessarily religion) rather than physical evidence proving one way or the other. I say it watching for evidence that would relate to this. Again, climate change, which is overwhelmingly linked to anthropogenic cause, has nothing to do with that, it is better to not bring up what you don't know anything about.

 

[Astrophile]

Furthermore, in biblical times a year was 360 days - today it is 365 days - we have no data as to how many days a year was a billion years ago. The data simply is not available.

In fact there are data for the number of days in a year 900 million years ago. Analysis of rhythmic sedimentary rocks that have preserved evidence for the tides implies that at this time there were between 481 and 486 days in the year.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

In fact there are data for the number of days in a year 900 million years ago. Analysis of rhythmic sedimentary rocks that have preserved evidence for the tides implies that at this time there were between 481 and 486 days in the year.

Thanks for that.

 

[Astrid]

In fact there are data for the number of days in a year 900 million years ago. Analysis of rhythmic sedimentary rocks that have preserved evidence for the tides implies that at this time there were between 481 and 486 days in the year.

There's a number of different ways that
days per year at different earth ages is
determined.
There's no way it was 360 days in biblical
times.
People who just make things up and
state them as fact do themselves no credit.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There's a number of different ways that
days per year at different earth ages is
determined.
There's no way it was 360 days in biblical
times.
People who just make things up and
state them as fact do themselves no credit.

I think in some of the ancient lunar calendars (I sure you're familiar with lunar calendars -- Happy New Year.) there were apparently 12 months of 30 days in a 360 day year. (Or maybe it was lunar-solar calendars, I forget which.) That's probably what is confusing him.

 

[coffee4u]

The primary objection to evolution from creationists seems to be centered on human evolution specifically. For some reason the fact of sharing hereditary ancestry with other species causes creationists no end of grief.

However, if we didn't share ancestry with other species, why are we made of all the same 'stuff' as other animals? Especially in regards to our closest relatives (other primates), we share the same body plan, organs, cell structure, majority of our genetic makeup and so on.

If it was really important that we be distinct from other animal species, why didn't God make us wholly unique? Why not give us a completely unique physical makeup and genetic structure?

Evolution at least can explain this via genetic inheritance. Independent creation... not so much.

And before you say, "God just reused common parts":

a) Why would God reuse common parts in a manner that is perfectly consistent with genetic inheritance and biological evolution?

b) Why would it matter if we consider ourselves physically "related" to animals if we're all made from the same stuff to begin with?

a) Why would God reuse common parts in a manner that is perfectly consistent with genetic inheritance and biological evolution?
Because Evolution is a strong delusion.

2 Thessalonians 2:10-11
10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.

God outlines how he created in his word, its a simple as that.

2 Timothy 3:16​

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

b) Why would it matter if we consider ourselves physically "related" to animals if we're all made from the same stuff to begin with?

The same base building blocks yes, but the same no. God created mankind not only in his image but gave us a spirit. Animals are not made in Gods image nor do they have a spirit, only a soul. This means animals cannot commune and talk to God but they do have emotions.
Genesis 1:27
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

God gave the spirit when he breathed into Adams nostrils. "The breath of life". In the Hebrew the word translated as breath is neshamah. This same Hebrew word is translated as spirit in Proverbs 20:27, which says: “The spirit of man is the lamp of Jehovah.”

​

 

[kiwimac]

I’m not sure what creation supporters you engage with, but my primary objection is that evolutionism isn’t supported by scripture.

Nor is nuclear physics.

 

[Hammster]

Nor is nuclear physics.

Dug deep for that one.

Where does scripture discuss physics?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Dug deep for that one.

Where does scripture discuss physics?

Nowhere, which is why I don't read them.

 

[Hammster]

Nowhere, which is why I don't read them.

Okay.

 

[dlamberth]

I’m not sure what creation supporters you engage with, but my primary objection is that evolutionism isn’t supported by scripture.

Wow...going back a bit for this one.

My primary objections with scripture is that when it comes to creation they do not support what God's own Creation, created by His own hands and signed off with His signature has shown us.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I missed this bit until someone else responded to it:

my primary objection is that evolutionism isn’t supported by scripture.

Evolution (not an ism) is a science and science doesn't use "scripture".

This evolutionism isn't an actual thing so I'm not surprised it is not supported by your scripture. (Though since it was invented as as strawman by some Christian,...)

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow...going back a bit for this one.

My primary objections with scripture is that when it comes to creation they do not support what God's own Creation, created by His own hands and signed off with His signature has shown us.

That's like people scratching the Mona Lisa, then others saying the Mona Lisa was painted that way.

We look at the earth -- beaten to a pulp over a six thousand period -- and some saying, "Wow! Look at how God created this earth!"

 

[AV1611VET]

This evolutionism isn't an actual thing ...

The dictionary and standard methods of creating neologisms can take a hike, can't they?

 

[Hans Blaster]

The dictionary and standard methods of creating neologisms can take a hike, can't they?

You can make up words about any fictional thing, but "evolutionism" is a fictional thing whether you make a word for it or not. (It is a creationist strawman.)