Creationists False on Key Point

Dale · Oct 17, 2016

BukiRob said:
More importantly there is absolutely no conflict with our OBSERVED age of the universe and a literal 6 day creation!

Because time is relative based upon where it is observed.

If one is serious about creation science then one of the place to read up on this topics IRC.org Articles posted here are published by scientists. In other words, an article about TIME and Space and creation would be written by a PhD with a degree in physics

By IRC.org I assume you mean ICR, the Institute for Creation Research.

The Institute for Creation Research was founded by Henry Morris. Today, the President of ICR is John Morris. When the founder, Henry Morris died, his son, John Morris inherited the organization. Whey would I think that ICR is anything more than a small, insignificant, family controlled organization?

ICR requires its employees to sign a statement of faith, something completely incompatible with scientific research.

Dale · Oct 17, 2016

BukiRob said:
By you sure paint things with ALL and EVERY

I am a literal and could not disagree more with your assertions.

99.99% have bought into the LIE and frankly are even unaware of it. The lie is that pre-antediluvian man was little more than caveman.

Quite the opposite is true. Adam and Eve were geniuses who produced geniuses. Eve would have been the intellectual equal of DaVinci and Einstien and would have made today's most beautiful super model look like plain Jane.

Case in point.... 2 brothers Jubal and Tubal-Cain. All Jubal did was invent music along with all of the stringed instruments along with wind instruments upon which it was played. Yeah, you've got to be insanely brilliant to come up with that. His brother Tubal-Cain somehow figured out that by heating up certain rocks they would melt and then you could produce tools made of Bronze and Iron....

We get a small glimpse of just how smart these people were. So why did the flood come? It came because G-d said that "all flesh had corrupted its way."

Now think about that..... at what point in mankinds history of being fallen has man NOT been corrupted in its way???? Answer:Man has ALWAYS been corrupted in his natural state. That being true, then the Father MUST be speaking about something OTHER than mans fallen state....

We get a second hint when Yeshua tells us that ""For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be."

Seems pretty ordinary life as usual... except that in the days of Noah "all flesh had corrupted its way."

So something more is going on here. First off, the theory that Angels left their station and slept with women is almost certainly not true. Again Yeshua states plainly that Angles are unable to procreate. We know this because when asked about who the woman would be married too after having several husbands who preceded her in death he tells them that they do not understand... and that when we are raised we like the angels will not give or be given to marriage.

The Sethian line (son born to Adam and eve after Able is murdered) is a righteous line that produces Noah. I believe that pre-flood man was manipulating both human and animal DNA and were producing corrupted beings G-d never intended exists.... as a result the human gene pool was corrupted. Satan did this in an effort to PREVENT Messiah from ever coming to man.

This was so common place (altered DNA or genetically modified humans and animals) that if you weren't you were an oddity.

All of this was orchestrated by Satan to prevent Messiah from ever coming to earth.

BukiRob in post #318:
<< I believe that pre-flood man was manipulating both human and animal DNA and were producing corrupted beings G-d never intended exists.... as a result the human gene pool was corrupted. Satan did this in an effort to PREVENT Messiah from ever coming to man.

This was so common place (altered DNA or genetically modified humans and animals) that if you weren't you were an oddity.

All of this was orchestrated by Satan to prevent Messiah from ever coming to earth. >>

Once more a creationist has come up with a bizarre, unsupported claim unlike anything we've ever heard before. As I said earlier, creationism is an ever-changing kaleidoscope of opinions.

pat34lee · Oct 18, 2016

Dale said:
Some creationists say that God did remake the animals after the Fall. They say, for instance, that there were no predators before the Fall.

This is a very complicated scenario that isn't spelled out in the Bible.

There was no death before the fall. But, do plants live
and die in the manner of animals? How about insects
or fish? One thing the bible mentions when talking
about Noah and the flood, is animals having the breath
of life. I think only they and man counted as far as death.

pat34lee · Oct 18, 2016

Dale said:
ICR requires its employees to sign a statement of faith, something completely incompatible with scientific research.

So are patents and non-disclosure agreements.
They stifle free flow of progress.

pat34lee · Oct 18, 2016

Dale said:
Darwin's theory of evolution is very different from Lamarck's. Lamarck imagined that an animal wanted to change, had a desire to change. Darwin's theory doesn't depend on an animal having the intelligence or will to want anything.

Lamarckianism isn't about desire to change, but passing
on acquired characteristics. An animal finds a way to get
stronger or faster. He passes on this trait and his offspring
have an advantage over others. Doesn't work though. And
it's why no evolution works.

pat34lee · Oct 18, 2016

Dale said:
Creationists keep telling me that there can't be a new species. In plants, new species have been observed.

That depends what you consider a species. A better
term would be breed, which come from a common
ancestor.

pat34lee · Oct 18, 2016

BukiRob said:
I completely disagree and when I read articles on IRC.org I certainly do NOT see what you suggests.

You are trying to lump crack pots who neither understand scripture or science with scientists who are believers and are presenting ACADEMIC arguments for creation

No, they are Christians and other non-evolutionists
who are opposed to the philosophy and religion of
Darwinism and other evolutions masquerading as
science.

pat34lee · Oct 18, 2016

Dale said:
As I said earlier, creationism is an ever-changing kaleidoscope of opinions.

As opposed to the religion of evolution, which is set in stone?

Dale · Oct 19, 2016

pat34lee said:
There was no death before the fall. But, do plants live
and die in the manner of animals? How about insects
or fish? One thing the bible mentions when talking
about Noah and the flood, is animals having the breath
of life. I think only they and man counted as far as death.

pat34lee said:
So are patents and non-disclosure agreements.
They stifle free flow of progress.

pat34lee said:
Lamarckianism isn't about desire to change, but passing
on acquired characteristics. An animal finds a way to get
stronger or faster. He passes on this trait and his offspring
have an advantage over others. Doesn't work though. And
it's why no evolution works.

pat34lee said:
As opposed to the religion of evolution, which is set in stone?

Pat34Lee in Post #323:
<< There was no death before the fall. >>

Genesis does seem to imply that Adam and Eve were not subject to death before the fall from grace and expulsion from Eden. It doesn't say whether the same applies to animals and plants, so there is no reason to think that animals were immortal at that time.

Pat34Lee in Post #324:
<< So are patents and non-disclosure agreements.
They stifle free flow of progress. >>

Patents and non-disclosure agreements are very different things. To get a patent, an inventor is required to disclose his invention. One of my employers, who had about ten patents, thought that they end up working against the inventor by forcing disclosure. The original purpose of patents is to enable an inventor to profit from an invention, and so to give inventors incentive to invent by making it profitable.

I don't see how either a patent or a non-disclosure agreement compares to a statement of faith, which could easily block any research that doesn't lead to the desired ideological result.

Pat34Lee in Post #325:
<< Lamarckianism isn't about desire to change, but passing
on acquired characteristics. >>

My High School biology teacher specifically taught us that Lamarck's did believe that animals, and maybe even plants, had a desire to change. So it is about a “desire to change” as well as the inheritance of acquired characteristics.

Pat34Lee in Post #327:
<< As opposed to the religion of evolution, which is set in stone? >>

Why would anyone think evolution is a religion? Why would anyone think it is “set in stone”? Our beliefs about human evolution are changing with new discoveries. Our view of the evolution of animals are also changing with new discoveries.

Only creationists have a vested interest in saying that evolution is a religion. I'll give you an example. A few years ago, in the town I live in, someone rented a building and hung out a sign, “Church of Evolution”. Was there a Church of Evolution? Was anyone interested in attending such an organzation? Nope. It turned out that the person who rented the building and hung out the sign was a fundamentalist minister, a creationist, who was trying to prove that evolution is a religion.

BukiRob · Oct 20, 2016

Dale said:
By IRC.org I assume you mean ICR, the Institute for Creation Research.

The Institute for Creation Research was founded by Henry Morris. Today, the President of ICR is John Morris. When the founder, Henry Morris died, his son, John Morris inherited the organization. Whey would I think that ICR is anything more than a small, insignificant, family controlled organization?

ICR requires its employees to sign a statement of faith, something completely incompatible with scientific research.

LOL that is insanely weak.

The author contributors either DO or DO NOT have the requisite backgrounds from which to present evidence to the scientific community

Dale said:
By IRC.org I assume you mean ICR, the Institute for Creation Research.

The Institute for Creation Research was founded by Henry Morris. Today, the President of ICR is John Morris. When the founder, Henry Morris died, his son, John Morris inherited the organization. Whey would I think that ICR is anything more than a small, insignificant, family controlled organization?

ICR requires its employees to sign a statement of faith, something completely incompatible with scientific research.

So what?

None of your rant invalidates the qualifications of the people writing on the topics they cover. A PhD in nuclear physics does not become invalidated because A) the person who happens to have said Phd is a believer or B) happens to works at IRC.

Case in point Dr. Jeffrey P. Tomkins Phd in Genetics (Clemson) and was a faculty member at said institution in the department of Genetics and Biochemistry.

What now because after a distinguished career at Clemson his contributions and papers are not valid because he theoretically signed a paper with a statement of faith? That's lunacy but then, that is the norm for atheists.

John Morris has a Phd in Geological Engineering and was a member of the Oklahoma University faculty.

I could care less about the organization itself but the articles that are submitted are what I examine. I look to see what the academic credentials of the author are to determine if this person has the background to present the arguments he or she is making.

If you are going to "bag" on IRC because well, they are Christians and have an agenda... then you are being utterly, completely intellectually dishonest

BukiRob · Oct 20, 2016

Dale said:
BukiRob in post #318:
<< I believe that pre-flood man was manipulating both human and animal DNA and were producing corrupted beings G-d never intended exists.... as a result the human gene pool was corrupted. Satan did this in an effort to PREVENT Messiah from ever coming to man.

This was so common place (altered DNA or genetically modified humans and animals) that if you weren't you were an oddity.

All of this was orchestrated by Satan to prevent Messiah from ever coming to earth. >>

Once more a creationist has come up with a bizarre, unsupported claim unlike anything we've ever heard before. As I said earlier, creationism is an ever-changing kaleidoscope of opinions.

So tell us, since you have protestant listed as your belief system... which part of the bible do you believe is truth?

Its CLEAR that you do not believe Genesis.

Well, if you don't believe Genesis then how can you believe in ANY of the bible?

Messiah quoted Genesis. He clearly believed it was Truth otherwise he would not have quoted it.

Worse yet, when you arbitrarily decide that part of it is just stories then how do you know what is and is not truth?

The word of G-d is either a nice story book or its TRUTH. If its a nice story book who cares, why waste time with it and just "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die"

If I can not trust Genesis to be truth then NONE of it can be trusted and it then has ZERO value

Speedwell · Oct 20, 2016

pat34lee said:
Lamarckianism isn't about desire to change, but passing
on acquired characteristics. An animal finds a way to get
stronger or faster. He passes on this trait and his offspring
have an advantage over others. Doesn't work though. And
it's why no evolution works.

Why not? The theory of evolution is not about the transmission of acquired characteristics.

pat34lee · Oct 22, 2016

Speedwell said:
Why not? The theory of evolution is not about the transmission of acquired characteristics.

Semantics. It is about the transmission of acquired mutations,
or mistakes in the DNA. Which is even worse, because for just
one characteristic, you would need to pass on thousands or
more mutations, none of which are helpful in themselves.
Most would actually be harmful to its survival.

Then there are those features which are irreducibly complex.

Speedwell · Oct 22, 2016

pat34lee said:
Semantics. It is about the transmission of acquired mutations,
or mistakes in the DNA. Which is even worse, because for just
one characteristic, you would need to pass on thousands or
more mutations, none of which are helpful in themselves.
Most would actually be harmful to its survival.

Do you have a source for that description of how evolution is supposed to work? There is an overwhelming odor of straw about it.

Then there are those features which are irreducibly complex.

No examples of which have ever been presented. I understand that even Behe has given up on it.

Dale · Oct 22, 2016

pat34lee said:
Semantics. It is about the transmission of acquired mutations,
or mistakes in the DNA. Which is even worse, because for just
one characteristic, you would need to pass on thousands or
more mutations, none of which are helpful in themselves.
Most would actually be harmful to its survival.

Then there are those features which are irreducibly complex.

I don't think you understand how it works.

Mutations are recessive until a second mutation makes them dominant. That's one reason they don't do as much harm as you seem to think.

Destructive mutations tend to be eliminated.
Some mutations are close to being neutral, neither particularly beneficial or harmful.

I'm not sure you realize that evolution is about adaptation, adapting to the environment.

pat34lee · Oct 23, 2016

Speedwell said:
Do you have a source for that description of how evolution is supposed to work? There is an overwhelming odor of straw about it.

This place simplifies it to the point of absurdity, but as the
whole of evolution is absurd:
http://www.strangescience.net/evolution.htm

Speedwell said:
No examples of which have ever been presented. I understand that even Behe has given up on it.

There comes a point where most people stop banging their heads on
stone walls. When the wake up, they just don't do it again. Fortunately,
I have yet to reach that point.

Have you seen Dawkins try to defend the evolution of the eye? Smoke
screens and garbage. What he proposed is not evolution or gradual
changes, but totally different visual methods which are not interchangeable.

The world's first high-speed outboard motor

pat34lee · Oct 23, 2016

Dale said:
I don't think you understand how it works.

Mutations are recessive until a second mutation makes them dominant. That's one reason they don't do as much harm as you seem to think.

Destructive mutations tend to be eliminated.
Some mutations are close to being neutral, neither particularly beneficial or harmful.

I'm not sure you realize that evolution is about adaptation, adapting to the environment.

Adaptation has limits. Evolution is supposedly non-stop.

Logic puzzle. I can have my genes altered or mutated, and
none will ever bother my offspring. Why? Only the gametes
matter. That counts out the fittest as necessarily having the
best DNA to pass on. And why heredity controls the traits
of the offspring, not evolution.

Speedwell · Oct 24, 2016

pat34lee said:
Adaptation has limits. Evolution is supposedly non-stop.

Logic puzzle. I can have my genes altered or mutated, and
none will ever bother my offspring. Why? Only the gametes
matter. That counts out the fittest as necessarily having the
best DNA to pass on. And why heredity controls the traits
of the offspring, not evolution.

That heredity controls the traits of the offspring is evolution.

Dale · Oct 24, 2016

pat34lee said:
This place simplifies it to the point of absurdity, but as the
whole of evolution is absurd:
http://www.strangescience.net/evolution.htm

There comes a point where most people stop banging their heads on
stone walls. When the wake up, they just don't do it again. Fortunately,
I have yet to reach that point.

Have you seen Dawkins try to defend the evolution of the eye? Smoke
screens and garbage. What he proposed is not evolution or gradual
changes, but totally different visual methods which are not interchangeable.

The world's first high-speed outboard motor

The paramecium, a one celled animal, has an eye spot, a spot sensitive to light.

It evolves from there.

pat34lee · Oct 24, 2016

Dale said:
The paramecium, a one celled animal, has an eye spot, a spot sensitive to light.
It evolves from there.

It may get fatter, longer, shorter, change colors, on and on
but it will always be a paramecium with an eye spot.

Creationists False on Key Point

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Messianic

Messianic

Messianic

Messianic

Messianic

Messianic

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Messianic

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Messianic

Messianic

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Messianic

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency