Bible-Creation-Evolution (3)

[Tiberius]

Yes, I am -- you're not understanding.

What we understand is that you have already decided on the conclusion, so any evidence that shows your conclusiuon is wrong, you must explain away somehow.

You have nothing before Day One -- literally.

We have quite a bit actually.

(And don't think I'm not noticing you're not capitalizing it.)

What difference does it make?

No, you don't.

Um, we do have remains of settlements, social structures, buildings, foundations and a whole bunch of other stuff that you feel the need to discredit simply because it disagrees with your conclusion.

No, you don't.

Again, we do.

or do you think that scientists have really just bee carving them, burying them, digging them up and saying, "Oh, look!" in a secret conspiracy to disagree with religion?

See? now you're talking like it's still Day One.

AV, we do see starlight. You think that in your creationist model of the universe starlight would only have been visible at the beginning?

What about them?

They display evidence that the earth has existed for many billions of years. They are things that could only have occured if the scientific model of how the earth was formed and changed over time is accurate.

And genetic information shows how life has evolved. The genetic information alone gives more evidence for evolution than the fossil record ever could.

No, it's not.

Let me rephrase it. The amount of information is large and consistant providing the person observing it doesn't stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to look at it because they don't want their beliefs challenged.

1. The world is not 6000 years old.
2. There are 13.7 billion years of maturity without history embedded.

Maturity without history? What about the scars on the earth left by meteorite impacts? Don't they tell of historic events that occured during this time?

Your computers tell you that stuff.

Computers are only tools, AV. The data themselves are gathered out in the field, from this wonderful place called reality. I strongly recommend you go there sometime, AV.

Only His antagonists believe that.

And yet you are the one proposing that God has made the world look so convincingly old when it is not.

 

[Greg1234]

I cant understand the thought process someone must have to deny this. The human brain is amazing.

I don't understand how people can deny the intelligent design of man.. It's incredible really.

 

[super animator]

I don't understand how people can deny the intelligent design of man.. It's incredible really.

Troll much greg?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I don't understand how people can deny the intelligent design of man.. It's incredible really.

Go to med school. You'll start doubting the intelligent design of the human pretty fast.

 

[sublime911]

AV please help me understand your opinion on this. Why would God create shocked quartz and breccia, (which are only formed under intense pressure and burst heat), screw with the sedimentary layers to look like something crashed into it and sort of try to cover up the crater by making it look like millions of years of erosion that never really happened took place. Oh and lets not forget to create gravitational anomaly's that look as if an impact took place and line up mass extinctions on the "fake" fossil record with these craters a swell. Oh and also lets create (or at least not cure, guess he was to busy misleading everyone ) Harlequin-type ichthyosis for some laughs. (Dont google that disease if you just ate, it effects newborn babies.) You would call this sort of creator benevolent?

no answer to this?

 

[Greg1234]

Go to med school. You'll start doubting the intelligent design of the human pretty fast.

The only way to "doubt" the intelligent design of man is when you can show that purely naturalistic unintelligent processes can create the complexity found in man. I'm sure a mechanic can find reasons to "doubt" the intelligent design of cars...or not.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

The only way to "doubt" the intelligent design of man is when you can show that purely naturalistic unintelligent processes can create the complexity found in man. I'm sure a mechanic can find reasons to "doubt" the intelligent design of cars...or not.

The evidence for evolution is there. And NO, a mechanic would have no reason to doubt the design of a car. Because a mechanic has access to the design specifications, and knows how each part works, and can fix parts when they break.

The human body is completely different. It's a mess of redundant systems, unnecessary complexity, and the signatures of common descent written all over it. If the human body was designed, the designer wasn't very intelligent. Most of our worst health problems in the United States are derived from this poor "design" (hypertension, atherosclerosis, diabetes, cancer).

Greg, you don't understand evolution or the human body, so what you have to say on the matter is meaningless.

 

[AV1611VET]

no answer to this?

AV please help me understand your opinion on this. Why would God create shocked quartz and breccia, (which are only formed under intense pressure and burst heat)...

In my [right to have an] opinion, God embedded this stuff in the earth, as it will be used to rebuild the earth after it is pretty-well destroyed during the Tribulation Period.

In other words, oil deposits, quartz, whatever you guys find will be used for the next dispensation.

... screw with ...

When I see word choices like this, this just tells me you're using me to vent some kind of anger or frustration at God.

No real scientist would use words like that, unless he has a real problem with authority -- in my opinion.

I don't think you're here to learn -- as your word choice attests -- I think you're just here to vent.

Please get someone else to cater to you, or reword your question(s) with respect to God -- or I'm not interested in answering them.

 

[AV1611VET]

The human brain is amazing.

Yes, the human brain creates mental blocks that manifest themselves in word choices, and keeps the questioners from understanding the answers.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maturity without history? What about the scars on the earth left by meteorite impacts?

Show me scars on the earth prior to Day Two of the Creation week, when the earth was a globe of water in the hollow of God's hand.

And calling it 'scars' is interesting, as you're trying to trick me into espousing Omphalos doctrine, aren't you?

(You do know that the navel [omphalos] is considered a scar, don't you?)

You guys love to call me Last Thursday and Omphalos, but it's not going to work -- I'm too smart for that, and I know creationism too well.

Nice try though.

 

[rjc34]

I cant understand the thought process someone must have to deny this. The human brain is amazing.

I believe AV calls it a 'boolean standard' that he has.

Ask him about it sometime.

 

[rjc34]

In my [right to have an] opinion, God embedded this stuff in the earth, as it will be used to rebuild the earth after it is pretty-well destroyed during the Tribulation Period.

In other words, oil deposits, quartz, whatever you guys find will be used for the next dispensation.

So basically 'God works in mysterious ways'? Cool.

When I see word choices like this, this just tells me you're using me to vent some kind of anger or frustration at God.

How can somebody be angry at something they don't believe in? That's like me telling you that you must be angry and frustrated with Leprechauns.

 

[Tiberius]

Show me scars on the earth prior to Day Two of the Creation week, when the earth was a globe of water in the hollow of God's hand.

And calling it 'scars' is interesting, as you're trying to trick me into espousing Omphalos doctrine, aren't you?

(You do know that the navel [omphalos] is considered a scar, don't you?)

You guys love to call me Last Thursday and Omphalos, but it's not going to work -- I'm too smart for that, and I know creationism too well.

Nice try though.

Ah, so if the meteorite impacts actually happened (and thus must have occured AFTER the earth was created some 6000 years ago), why do they date to be millions of years old?

 

[Greg1234]

The evidence for evolution is there. And NO, a mechanic would have no reason to doubt the design of a car. Because a mechanic has access to the design specifications, and knows how each part works, and can fix parts when they break.

Without design specs, a car found on a desolate planet with the design inherent in it today is determined to be intelligently designed.

The human body is completely different.

It's even more complex.

It's a mess of redundant systems,

A computer is a mess of redundant systems. It can make use of an electrical power source using an AC adapter and can function only on battery. Multiple shut down functions. The left mouse button to click and also that function on the scroll pad. Speakers and head phones capabilities. Wireless integrated function, and dial-up capability which utilizes wires A keyboard and an onscreen keyboard. Backup memory. It also adapts by turning a fan on and off but that adaptation is limited also so don't even go there. This design is the cause of many diseases. It crashes, slows down, overheats and makes a poor pillow in my opinion But the integrated complexity revealed in that computer makes a case for intelligent design.

unnecessary complexity,

Whether or not you wanted a simpler design is irrelevant.

and the signatures of common descent written all over it.

Limit in adaptation is not a signature of common descent. Neither in cars nor biological systems.

If the human body was designed, the designer wasn't very intelligent. Most of our worst health problems in the United States are derived from this poor "design" (hypertension, atherosclerosis, diabetes, cancer).

Irrelevant. A design of a car is not determined by its trade offs, deterioration over time, etc but from its integrated specified complexity. Pointing out a blind spot in a car, or the defects in an overworked Chevy does not mean that chance can build the integrated complexity found in either. Don't know where you were going with that.

Greg, you don't understand evolution or the human body, so what you have to say on the matter is meaningless.

Then provide the data that purely naturalistic unintelligent processes can build humans.

 

[AV1611VET]

I believe AV calls it a 'boolean standard' that he has.

Ask him about it sometime.

You tell him what they are.

Or did you choose to ridicule them, rather than learn them?

 

[AV1611VET]

So basically 'God works in mysterious ways'? Cool.

At least you didn't say, 'magical' -- that's a relief.

Thanks to you guys, I'm pretty close to hating that word now.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, so if the meteorite impacts actually happened (and thus must have occured AFTER the earth was created some 6000 years ago), why do they date to be millions of years old?

I don't want to discuss anything after the first 24 hours of the universe.

I'm trying to get you to understand what happened, and you are chomping at the bit to get me into a scientific discussion.

And it's not going to happen.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Without design specs, a car found on a desolate planet with the design inherent in it today is determined to be intelligently designed.

How would you determine that it is intelligently designed? Would you compare it to something that wasn't?

It's even more complex.
A computer is a mess of redundant systems. It has an electrical power source and a battery. Multiple shut down functions. The left mouse button to click and also that function on the scroll pad. Speakers and head phones capabilities. Wireless integrated function, and dial-up capability which utilizes wires A keyboard and an onscreen keyboard. Backup memory. It also adapts by turning a fan on and off but that adaptation is limited also so don't even go there. This design is the cause of many diseases. It crashes, slows down, overheats and makes a poor pillow in my opinion But the integrated complexity revealed in that computer makes a case for intelligent design.

You're not getting my point. People who intelligently design computer systems to not add redundant, useless complexity. Humans have redundant, useless complexity.

Explain why we as humans have the Vitamin C and Uric acid metabolism genes, but they are mutated and don't work? Who intelligently designed that? Because of this, we are at risk for developing scurvy.

Whether or not you wanted a simpler design is irrelevant.

Not "simple"..."efficient".

Limit in adaptation is not a signature of common descent. Neither in cars nor biological systems.

You have no evidence of limits.

Irrelevant. A design of a car is not determined by its trade offs, deterioration over time, etc but from its integrated specified complexity. Pointing out a blind spot in a car, or the defects in an overworked Chevy does not mean that chance can build the integrated complexity found in either. Don't know where you were going with that.

Our bodies are really only good at getting us through the reproductive years. After that, cholesterol kills us because we don't have an effective way of getting rid of it. Poor design.

Then provide the data that purely naturalistic unintelligent processes can build humans.

Read up on the theory of evolution; we have quite a bit of it worked out. Seeing how you know nothing about evolution, it could do you some good to look it up.

 

[rjc34]

You tell him what they are.

Or did you choose to ridicule them, rather than learn them?

I hold standards of evidence. I do not reject anything simply because it clashes with something I believe.

(Basically I reject your standard that if something conflicts with scripture, scripture always prevails regardless of the evidence.)

 

[rjc34]

At least you didn't say, 'magical' -- that's a relief.

I don't believe in magic