Are creationists dwindling in number?

[Aman777]

Is there a difference?

Of course there is. You will see the difference soon as you watch the world slip by as you sink into the Lake of Fire unless you change your mind/repent. God Bless you

 

[pitabread]

You will see the difference soon as you watch the world slip by as you sink into the Lake of Fire unless you change your mind/repent.

Ah, the ol' threat of eternal damnation. Sorry, but I don't buy conversion via coercion. It's the worst kind of apologetics.

 

[Aman777]

Ah, the ol' threat of eternal damnation. Sorry, but I don't buy conversion via coercion. It's the worst kind of apologetics.

I see. Telling you the Truth means I'm trying to scare you. Or is it a Warning of a certain event which awaits those who have not been born again Spiritually? Jhn 3:7

 

[pitabread]

I see. Telling you the Truth means I'm trying to scare you. Or is it a Warning of a certain event which awaits those who have not been born again Spiritually? Jhn 3:7

Meh.

You need to understand, I'm familiar with Christian apologetics. I happen to find Christian theology to be fundamentally illogical. Not to mention choosing an individual religion over all other world religions that for many people seems to be largely the result of cultural convenience.

When you start tossing in threats of hellfire and damnation, that's when I really tune out. It just strikes me as an overly desperate form of proselytizing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No evidence to support your critique...as usual. Try to do better. God Bless you

No need for "evidence" I already pointed out your errors to you.

Sadly you do not understand the concept. I am not going to argue over your errors. When you make an error identifying it is usually good enough.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see. Telling you the Truth means I'm trying to scare you. Or is it a Warning of a certain event which awaits those who have not been born again Spiritually? Jhn 3:7

Please, you are just telling stories.

When you can support your claims then you might be able to claim that you are "Telling the Truth".

 

[PsychoSarah]

You know that I consider you to be one of the best minds online, but you are not God, but instead a woman. Sorry, but I always take God's Word, instead of mortal man's or woman's. No slight intended since He can take us both to Heaven and I can hardly wait to see you there. God Bless you

Oh, I am fine with you disagreeing with me on my points. I do think you should take care not to say that not a single evolution supporter has presented an explanation for how human intelligence developed naturally to you. Plenty have, you just don't consider them valid. When you say "none have come forward to present an explanation to me", it makes it sound like people have never even tried to debate you on this matter. Which we both know isn't true.

 

[Aman777]

Oh, I am fine with you disagreeing with me on my points. I do think you should take care not to say that not a single evolution supporter has presented an explanation for how human intelligence developed naturally to you. Plenty have, you just don't consider them valid. When you say "none have come forward to present an explanation to me", it makes it sound like people have never even tried to debate you on this matter. Which we both know isn't true.

Many evols have offered an explanation but none has explained the process of how God's superior intelligence got inside prehistoric people. They don't seem to understand that there is but one way to put another's intelligence of people and that is by the sexual process. Can you tell us another way?

Please don't imagine that I will accept that mindless nature over gradual long periods of time and millions of positive mutations changed prehistoric populations into Humans (descendants of Adam) EXCEPT as God told us 3k years ago:

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God (prehistoric men) came in unto the daughters of men, (Adam) and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

The SAME thing happened on planet Earth AFTER the Ark arrived and Human civilization can be traced to Noah's grandsons producing children with the prehistoric people Gen 10:10 who had been on planet Earth for millions of years before the Ark arrived. That's God's Truth genetically. God Bless you

 

[PsychoSarah]

Many evols have offered an explanation but none has explained the process of how God's superior intelligence got inside prehistoric people.

Since plenty of the people you have debated with are atheists, like myself, that wouldn't be a valid thing for us to even attempt to address. From our perspective, there is no "godly intelligence".

They don't seem to understand that there is but one way to put another's intelligence of people and that is by the sexual process. Can you tell us another way?

-_- well, mutation isn't really the result of the sexual process in any direct way. It's an error in the production of the gametes themselves, or a result of the gametes becoming compromised via viral infection and the like. However, from an evolutionary perspective, the increase in intelligence was generally gradual with some jumps due to specific mutations and selective pressures. So, human intelligence didn't arise all at once. In fact, ancient humans actually generally had smaller brains than modern ones. Even within our own species, the trend has continued.

Please don't imagine that I will accept that mindless nature over gradual long periods of time and millions of positive mutations changed prehistoric populations into Humans (descendants of Adam) EXCEPT as God told us 3k years ago:

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God (prehistoric men) came in unto the daughters of men, (Adam) and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

I know you don't view unguided evolution as a valid explanation for human intelligence. My only contention was that what you previously said implied none had even tried to offer an explanation for it that didn't include a deity. I'm not trying to debate you on the topic right now. I'd much rather just enjoy the periodic debates you have with the person with the unfortunate username of "dad". I end up calling him "sir" whenever I debate him because of how awkward that username is to address him by.

The SAME thing happened on planet Earth AFTER the Ark arrived and Human civilization can be traced to Noah's grandsons producing children with the prehistoric people Gen 10:10 who had been on planet Earth for millions of years before the Ark arrived. That's God's Truth genetically. God Bless you

I forget, do you view Neanderthals as one of these prehistoric peoples?

 

[Aman777]

Since plenty of the people you have debated with are atheists, like myself, that wouldn't be a valid thing for us to even attempt to address. From our perspective, there is no "godly intelligence".

Then tell us the difference between animal and Human intelligence, which is the highest on planet Earth. Legally, we don't try animals since they don't have enough intelligence to understand the charges brought against them, so we try their Human owners, with the ability to think and speak.

*** -_- well, mutation isn't really the result of the sexual process in any direct way. It's an error in the production of the gametes themselves, or a result of the gametes becoming compromised via viral infection and the like. However, from an evolutionary perspective, the increase in intelligence was generally gradual with some jumps due to specific mutations and selective pressures. So, human intelligence didn't arise all at once. In fact, ancient humans actually generally had smaller brains than modern ones. Even within our own species, the trend has continued.

The sons of God (prehistoric people) are the most intelligent of the animals which were brought forth from Water on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21 They were NOT Humans because only the descendants of Adam have inherited his superior intelligence, but they were the smartest creatures until the Ark arrived and they inherited Adam's superior intelligence some 11k years ago. Gen 6:4

***I know you don't view unguided evolution as a valid explanation for human intelligence. My only contention was that what you previously said implied none had even tried to offer an explanation for it that didn't include a deity. I'm not trying to debate you on the topic right now. I'd much rather just enjoy the periodic debates you have with the person with the unfortunate username of "dad". I end up calling him "sir" whenever I debate him because of how awkward that username is to address him by.

Oh, you mean undefeated dad. I told him he needed to change his "undefeated" sign, but of course, he didn't agree. I call him dad and picture him as an old grouchy senile hermit, sitting on the porch bellowing into the wind. He's a really fabulous character and I love him dearly....LOL.

*** I forget, do you view Neanderthals as one of these prehistoric peoples?

Yes. The consensus is that Neandertal could be in the line to Homo Sapiens but the jury is still out. To me, the Cro-Magnon are the people who Noah's grandsons married and produced today's hybrid Human's, since we have inherited Adam's superior intelligence and the DNA of prehistoric people. I view the American Indians as descended from Cro-Magnon. To Noah's descendants, they were savages. Amen?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Then tell us the difference between animal and Human intelligence, which is the highest on planet Earth.

-_- fundamentally, there is no difference between how human intelligence works versus how it works in other animals. Some of our brain sections, such as the frontal lobes, are larger and more developed. The brains of other animals work the same basic way as human brains do. Measurably so. Furthermore, human intelligence is only the "highest" depending upon what tasks you are measuring. We don't have the best memory; chimps actually consistently beat humans in memory tasks. We don't have the best spatial reasoning either; plenty of birds outdo us in that regard. We are really good at logic and problem solving tasks.

Legally, we don't try animals since they don't have enough intelligence to understand the charges brought against them, so we try their Human owners, with the ability to think and speak.

-_- the same applies to young children. If a 2 year old gets a hold of their father's gun and shoots a hole in the neighbor's window, we don't hold that child accountable. Also, in case you haven't noticed, even though we don't consider animals able to abide by laws, we deal out the death penalty to them quite readily compared to humans that can understand the moral consequences. We value human lives more, since we are a social species. Hence why a human that kills a 5 year old might avoid a death sentence, but a dog that kills a 5 year old has no chance.

The sons of God (prehistoric people) are the most intelligent of the animals which were brought forth from Water on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21 They were NOT Humans because only the descendants of Adam have inherited his superior intelligence, but they were the smartest creatures until the Ark arrived and they inherited Adam's superior intelligence some 11k years ago. Gen 6:4

Some of them were capable of communication via sign language and the like. Heck, Neanderthals had larger brains than our species.

Oh, you mean undefeated dad. I told him he needed to change his "undefeated" sign, but of course, he didn't agree. I call him dad and picture him as an old grouchy senile hermit, sitting on the porch bellowing into the wind. He's a really fabulous character and I love him dearly....LOL.

You were not the first to defeat his position. He just demands that his position be "undefeatable" since, by his own admission, he considers all evidence to be evidence for his position no matter what.

Yes. The consensus is that Neandertal could be in the line to Homo Sapiens but the jury is still out.

Well, all species in the genus Homo could be colloquially called "human", but ever since Neanderthal DNA was sequenced, the consensus would be that they are close cousins to our species. Our mitochondrial DNA is quite different. So much so that it wasn't initially thought that Neanderthals and our species had ever produced offspring with each other to any relevant extent. However, once cellular DNA was compared, it was found that certain populations of our species do have traces of Neanderthal DNA, while others do not. What this means is that, chances are, female offspring of this pairing were infertile (since mitochondrial DNA is passed down from moms to their children near exclusively. It's been observed rarely to be passed down by the father in some mammals, but never observed in humans).

To me, the Cro-Magnon are the people who Noah's grandsons married and produced today's hybrid Human's, since we have inherited Adam's superior intelligence and the DNA of prehistoric people. I view the American Indians as descended from Cro-Magnon. To Noah's descendants, they were savages. Amen?

Cro-Magnon is just a term for ancient humans. As smart as modern humans? No. Smart enough that if you took a Cro-Magnon infant and raised it in modern times that they could function in our society? Yes. Also, all humans are descended from Cro-Magnons. The only reason Native Americans didn't have the same advanced tools as say, Europeans, was due to less communication between groups and other such issues. Things like guns were the accumulation of technologies devised by various groups of people that spread through communication. If you open a history book, you'll note that China was once the hotbed of technology, but after centuries of isolationism, fell far behind and is just starting to catch up. People in Africa did not develop as many technologies due to limits in resources and the stress of living in more dangerous areas making survival always the main focus.

Culture and religion can also stall technological progress, as is what happened in Europe during the Christian Dark Ages.

 

[Aman777]

Culture and religion can also stall technological progress, as is what happened in Europe during the Christian Dark Ages.

I agree since Religion is the enemy of Christianity. Notice that I always make a difference between Religionists and Christians. Religionists preach what their group believes, no matter if it makes any sense or Not. Christians stick close to Scripture which gives us constant conflict with some denominations who insist that their view doesn't have to be supported by Scripture since they know more than Bible believers, they think. God Bless them

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree since Religion is the enemy of Christianity. Notice that I always make a difference between Religionists and Christians. Religionists preach what their group believes, no matter if it makes any sense or Not. Christians stick close to Scripture which gives us constant conflict with some denominations who insist that their view doesn't have to be supported by Scripture since they know more than Bible believers, they think. God Bless them

Sorry, but you don't get to make up your own definitions for words. Christianity is a religion, if you want to you could always find a different term to describe your own beliefs. But you don't get to redefine words that are used by everyone.

 

[Northwest Savant]

You don't seem to understand how science is done.

Yes, dates have changed, but they tend to get more and more accurate. I would love to see that source of your date. Creationists often pick dates on the fringe and falsely claim "this was the date"...
But we have learned more since the time when you first saw your date. Scientists used t think that the expansion of the Big Bang was a one shot deal, but in the last 20 years they found, again with better and more accurate telescopes, that it is still expanding today and that changed the date a bit. It may change a bit more in the future.

I don't know why you asked your question. Surely you know that the dates of YEC's are totally wrong.

Or at the very least I hope that you do.

Well, the JWST (James Webb Space Telescope) was delayed for several years past what was planned six years ago when I posted this response in 2017. The JWST was finally launched on Christmas Day 2021. Fast forward to February 2023, and just as I predicted in my post, the JWST has just viewed six objects from the dawn of the beginning of the big bang which appear to be galaxies larger and older than our 13.5 Gyr Milky Way. Here's an NBC interview covering the discovery:

James Webb Space Telescope images shatter understanding of age of the universe

The James Webb Space Telescope found six massive galaxies that some scientists never thought could exist. The telescope is so powerful it might have just shattered scientific understanding of the universe. Theoretical Physicist and best selling author Dr. Michio Kaku talked to Gadi Schwartz...

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Halbhh]

Well, the JWST (James Webb Space Telescope) was delayed for several years past what was planned six years ago when I posted this response in 2017. The JWST was finally launched on Christmas Day 2021. Fast forward to February 2023, and just as I predicted in my post, the JWST has just viewed six objects from the dawn of the beginning of the big bang which appear to be galaxies larger and older than our 13.5 Gyr Milky Way. Here's an NBC interview covering the discovery:

James Webb Space Telescope images shatter understanding of age of the universe

The James Webb Space Telescope found six massive galaxies that some scientists never thought could exist. The telescope is so powerful it might have just shattered scientific understanding of the universe. Theoretical Physicist and best selling author Dr. Michio Kaku talked to Gadi Schwartz...

www.nbcnews.com

For decades now, the generally accepted best estimate of the age of the Universe has been 13.8bn years, not 13.5...

It's a huge discovery though to find relatively luminous (thus we'd think not small) galaxies only a mere 300 - 500 million years or so after the estimated time of the start of this Universe, because it had been thought such luminous galaxies would take longer to form (to gather in smaller galaxies through mergers into a larger brighter galaxy). That such bright galaxies seem present so early in the age of the Universe is unexpected and spectacular -- dramatic -- and it's not yet settled just what we are seeing, in that for instance, one interesting question is whether there could be enough super luminous stars to make an early galaxy relatively bright for the number of stars it has (so as to seem as if it were a larger galaxy with more stars). There are a number of open questions being considered. Stay tuned. But not to just a random NBC segment. Try something more about astronomy all the time, like Space.com or such, because it will be readable stuff but also stay pretty current. Here's their page

James Webb Space Telescope: The latest images and discoveries

Read the latest news about NASA's James Webb Space Telescope.

www.space.com

But for the moment, I'm going to offer you a best article around on this question, from a somewhat more involved website that gets into more detail.

Standard Model of Cosmology Survives JWST’s Surprising Finds | Quanta Magazine

Reports that the James Webb Space Telescope killed the reigning cosmological model turn out to have been exaggerated. But astronomers still have much to learn from distant galaxies glimpsed by Webb.

www.quantamagazine.org

Reports that the James Webb Space Telescope killed the reigning cosmological model turn out to have been exaggerated. But astronomers still have much to learn from distant galaxies glimpsed by Webb.