Are there any creationists willing to debate?

[troodon]

The same way a Platupus is a wierd duck, with toxic fins, a beaver tail, and a bill?

Fair enough, but we still have platypuses (or is it platypi?) around; we don't have fingered, long-tailed, toothed birds with non-keeled sturnums, small furcula, very symmetrical flight feathers, and large ilia and ischia around any more. Why would God decide He didn't want them around anymore? Again, to me, this shows God to be in the business of deceiving people into thinking there is evidence for evolution when really He just made it look like there was.

The universe is expanding, so it must have had a begining.
An infinitly small ball of matter couldn't have come from nowhere.

http://www.christianforums.com/t43923

If Evolution happened, there should only be one species for each niche.

Can you explain your reasoning behind this please?

 

[Megachihuahua]

Yes, Paulie. We have plecos and algae eaters, depsite the Algea Eater being far suppior to the tiny Pleco

 

[Uvas]

Yeah, that is what I meant, a creationist will demand a transitional fossil from a evolutionist, but there will never be the case where they would accept one. That is why I posted the question, what is an acceptable transitional fossil?

 

[LOVEequalsLXIX]

questions!
when did the ability to reason evolve?
how was that just a mutation?

why, if men are jsut higher developed apes, is it wrong for a man to kill another man and not for apes to kill apes?

 

[millionaire]

yes love you are a very intellegent person.

 

[worship4ever]

troodon, thefossil has BOTH features of a bird and a reptile, the bible says that. The bible is putting that animals into both species of pure and unpure animals. My orginial post was more indepth.

 

[troodon]

troodon, thefossil has BOTH features of a bird and a reptile, the bible says that. The bible is putting that animals into both species of pure and unpure animals. My orginial post was more indepth.

I wasn't responding to the part about what the bible says about birds and reptiles but the part where you said Archaeopteryx's arms and tail were birdlike. They aren't.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

questions!
when did the ability to reason evolve?

That depends of course on how you define reason. There is evidence that Neanderthals buried their dead indicating that they were conscious of death.

how was that just a mutation?

Why would it be a function of a single mutation, necessarily? More developed brains have a better ability to reason.

why, if men are jsut higher developed apes, is it wrong for a man to kill another man and not for apes to kill apes?

Humans have constructed systems of morality other animals have not constructed morality or at least a system as complicated as ours.

 

[JohnR7]

That depends of course on how you define reason. There is evidence that Neanderthals buried their dead indicating that they were conscious of death.

Everyone seems to have their own theory. Even today the way people bury their dead can be a bit strange. But for me, I think that they buryed their dead because it bothered them to see the dead eaten by animals. It shows that you have some regard for them, that you do not want their remains eaten by the next pack of wolves to come along.

What seems sort of strange is the custom they had at the time of christ, when the bones ended up in little boxes.

 

[JohnR7]

What's He look like?

Rev. 1:14-15
His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; [15] His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters;

 

[ifriit]

why, if men are jsut higher developed apes, is it wrong for a man to kill another man and not for apes to kill apes?

This is a question for ethics, philosophy and religion, not science.

 

[lucaspa]

how come the intermediate stage animals didnt survive?

another reason I wish creationists would at least read Darwin. Darwin addressed this: the later forms would be even better adapted and outcompete the previous species for the same ecological niche. Thus driving them to extinction. Kind of like H. sapiens did with H. erectus and H. neandertals.

 

[fortheloveofmike]

In what way is the bible the most accurate book on earth?

How do you know that some bloke didn't write a loose book of historical facts filled with fictional points in order to 'sex it up'. I will add that whilst most of the 'science' in the bible is considered wrong now, at the time it would have been considered a good explaination of the facts at hand. Unfortunately the incorrect science has been corrupted to mean the infallible word of 'God'.

For example if I look out of my window during the day, without any other evidence, I would say that the earth is basically flat and that sun moves across the sky. I know, however, that the earth is round and that it is rotating causing apparaent movement of the sun, due to evidence that I can draw upon in this modern day and age (although incidentaly the ancient greeks have long since proven the world to be round).

give me an example of some of the science in the bible that has been disproven.

 

[lucaspa]

if youre gonna believe the part in the bible that says God created, why would you not believe the part in the bible that says how he did it?

Because the part that says God created is THEOLOGY, and the Bible is a theology book. So I trust the theology. However, God left a second book: Creation. In that book God left evidence on HOW He created. And that evidence says that the how in the two creation stories is wrong.

What's more, the two creation stories contradict, and that tells me they were NEVER MEANT to be a literal how of creation. Instead, they are theological messages set in a mythical how. So I take the theology and let Creation tell me how God created.

 

[fortheloveofmike]

Did goat37 mention Arcaheopteryx? I must have missed that

No it doesn't, Archaeopteryx has 3 fully flexable fingers. There are no modern adult birds with anything close to that.

No it doesn't, Archaeopteryx's tail is long with 24 caudal vertebrae. I bet you couldn't find a modern bird with more than 12 caudals.

Yup, with all these non-avian characteristics its a wonder you YECs actually believe that this is nothing but a weird bird.

i believe it is its own species, not a transitional one. there are no fossils of anything between it and a bird, or it and a reptile. did these characteristics just pop out of all the reptiles all of a sudden?

 

[lucaspa]

the lack of proof does not prove the lack of.

Or, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But I am not saying that God does not exist. I am instead saying that creationists have so little faith that they MUST have "proof" or THEY can't believe God exists.

their belief in God is so poor that they say God doesn't exist if He can't be proven by science.

I do not require scientific proof of God's existence, but creationists do. Why? If they believe the Bible is so correct, why do they require science to back it up?

 

[fortheloveofmike]

Because the part that says God created is THEOLOGY, and the Bible is a theology book. So I trust the theology. However, God left a second book: Creation. In that book God left evidence on HOW He created. And that evidence says that the how in the two creation stories is wrong.

What's more, the two creation stories contradict, and that tells me they were NEVER MEANT to be a literal how of creation. Instead, they are theological messages set in a mythical how. So I take the theology and let Creation tell me how God created.

what two creation stories are we talking about? i only know of the one in genesis.

 

[fortheloveofmike]

I do not require scientific proof of God's existence, but creationists do. Why? If they believe the Bible is so correct, why do they require science to back it up?

i dont.

 

[goat37]

what two creation stories are we talking about? i only know of the one in genesis.

I believe Lucaspa is referring to the world we live in as the second book, and all of the evidence that supports evolution, and he believes that evolution is HOW God created... and from everything i've learned, I think he's right.

 

[lucaspa]

Megachihuahua Read the article again. He created an amino acid, not a cell. Emphasis on the "created"

Please read the article again. Fox STARTED with amino acids and ended up with living cells.

Oh good grief! I'm going to have to quote it to you, aren't I?

"Sid was also the first to synthesize a protein by heating amino acids under conditions found here on planet earth. Also, he was the first to show that these new thermal proteins, when placed in water, would self-organize into a living cell. More recently, he has demonstrated that this first protocell is also a protonerve cell. "