Creationists, what do the worlds universities know that creationists don't?

[knowledgeIsPower]

I'm not going to make a Johari window of who says/doesn't say // believes/doesn't believe what.

Yes I know. Your lack of desire to actually figure out at least roughly what the people you converse with on a daily basis believe and don't believe demonstrates a lack of respect.

Instead, I use the term 'you guys' and let that subset of posters -- who know who they are -- respond.

No instead you group me in with "you guys" and attribute actions and beliefs to me that I don't hold.

You make it sound like you're using the term accurately. If you were using the term "you guys" accurately I wouldn't have a problem.

BTW you have failed to address the most important part. Please give me your answer in a straightforward manner:
They don't share your belief. So what? Is that now a reason to start purposefully misrepresenting people. If you believe so then please explain it logically to me.

 

[Nostromo]

Actually you ask for evidence for intelligent design.

No, I don't. I don't have any idea of what non-human intelligent design would look like.

You were shown that the property of intelligence is capable.

I never had any doubt that if a god exists in the form that Christians imagine it does, it could do all the things they say it can do.

It is a possibility for you, it is an actuality based on the evidence for me. Even if you were to show that Darwinan evolution is capable, under the conditions, of creating man, people migrate to Darwinian evolution based on the faith that that possibility was an actuality in the past. If I asked you for evidence for Darwinian evolution, then you would go to a lab and show how said process works. In fact that's how all evidence for Darwinian evolution is advanced and countered.

Mmm... no it's not. You don't even need to know how the process works to show that it has happened.

(P.S. it's not called "Darwinian evolution" nowadays, there's a lot of the modern theory of biological evolution that's been developed since Darwin's time.)

If someone denies it, then it is their own choice, which is what I'm saying to you in regards to intelligent design.

If you're going to pick and choose the evidence you accept, then you're being dishonest with yourself. I'm not going to do that regardless of which direction it takes me, after all what would be the point in me denying a Creator if it was the truth? I don't stand to gain anything from believing the wrong thing.

Palaeontology tells us that life has been around on this planet for at least 3 billion years, and for at least a billion years there was only single celled life. There is a continuum of diversifying life from the beginning through to now, which is consistent with life evolving in the way we believe it does.
Genetics tells us that all life is related, and related in a pattern that is consistent with life evolving.

I acknowledge that an intelligent designer could have assembled man, but am I supposed to ignore the evidence that suggests that isn't what actually happened?

Actually that's precisely what you're asking for.

Even though I don't believe that it's possible to entirely remove faith from any situation? Could you do me a favour and let me tell you what I'm thinking instead of making something up yourself?

Intelligent design does not address who the designer is (this could indeed be a very long thread).

I'm asking if you think the Great Pyramid was built by God. Surely if intelligent design leaves enough evidence to ascertain the presence of intelligent design, that evidence can give us some kind of indication as to who that intelligence was.

 

[Greg1234]

I never had any doubt that if a god exists in the form that Christians imagine it does, it could do all the things they say it can do.

Right. And intelligence is the property capable of assembling man. Why do you think I have to chase you around? Here's a little exercise you can carry out. In this scenario the mechanism behind Darwinian evolution has been shown capable of building man for which there is no refutation. People still choose to reject the faith that it did happen this way in the past. Do you

A) Chase them around
B) Leave alone

If you're going to pick and choose the evidence you accept, then you're being dishonest with yourself.

We've refuted. That's what this forum is for.

I acknowledge that an intelligent designer could have assembled man, but am I supposed to ignore the evidence that suggests that isn't what actually happened?

If you have the data then present it.

 

[super animator]

Jesus didn't lie, the people who wrote the bible lied about Jesus.

And... how do you know this?

 

[AV1611VET]

And... how do you know this?

He doesn't -- but like any good Internet scientist, one can make comments as if they were there themselves.

It's called: uniformitarianism.

 

[Hespera]

And... how do you know this?

Well for starts, they claim to have been able to quote him word for word, decades later, from memory?

How likely is that?

AND unless he was really the son of god, which i dont think he was any more than the rest of us are.... a whole lot of what they wrote is purely made up ie, lies.

 

[Split Rock]

Because you gu... they think Jesus was a liar, so, by association, they must think we're liars as well.

How can anyone who acknowledges that Jesus didn't write the bible, accuse Jesus of lying because of something written in the bible?

 

[MoonLancer]

And... how do you know this?

consider that the first hand accounts where written 30 odd years later should make you at least wonder. Not to mention that many of the accounts are simply copies of an original account, which has the least amount of supernatural in it. on top of that the bible itself was compiled 300 years later and many parts were omitted to make the bible appear more in unison which is funny considering the bible is the book of many views and is quite easy to twist to a given view.

so it depends where on the grey scale of misrepresentation you would consider a lie to fall under.

 

[Nostromo]

Right. And intelligence is the property capable of assembling man. Why do you think I have to chase you around? Here's a little exercise you can carry out. In this scenario the mechanism behind Darwinian evolution has been shown capable of building man for which there is no refutation. People still choose to reject the faith that it did happen this way in the past.

It's not an exercise, that's what's happening every day.

We've refuted. That's what this forum is for.

Evaded and denied, yes. Refuted, no.

If you have the data then present it.

You know that the evidence is there, and where to find it, people here are continually trying to point you in the right direction. It seems to me that you'll continue misrepresenting or ignoring the evidence contrary to your position, but I'd gladly be proven wrong.

P.S. I'd still like an answer: Do you think the Great Pyramid was built by God?

 

[anabaptistfaith]

They know that the Bible is not a science textbook. People should stop trying to use it as such.

You can be glad it's not a science textbook. They change all the time. PTL that the Bible's account of things can still be trusted after 6,000 years!

 

[Hespera]

You can be glad it's not a science textbook. They change all the time. PTL that the Bible's account of things can still be trusted after 6,000 years!

New things are added to 'science textbooks" which is not at all the same as 'they chagne all the time". You'd have a very hard time finding any basic concepts that have changed.


I will agree tho that the bible is still as trustworthy as it ever was.

For example, we know that Pi=3; we know that the earth is only 6000 years old despite the fact that it isnt; we know the first two people were 'adam and eve' tho there were people for a million years before them;

We also know about unicorns and 4 legged grasshoppers and "leviathan" and how the whole world was covered with water.

yes for sure it is as true and reliable as it ever was.

 

[anabaptistfaith]

There were not people for millions of years before Adam and Eve. Christ stated, "from the beginning of creation God made them male and female."

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

There were not people for millions of years before Adam and Eve.

Prove it.

 

[Hespera]

There were not people for millions of years before Adam and Eve. Christ stated, "from the beginning of creation God made them male and female."

I did not say "millions". So dont correct on something i did not say.

The earliest use of fire goes back 750,000 years. People would predate that known site by a lot of years.

Now if you choose to believe that someone could write down, verbatim, what someone else (suppsoedly) said, decades after hearing it, thats your deal. i think its very unlikely.

And if he did say it, that doesnt make it true. Nor does it mean that you correctly understand what was meant, after it goes thru translation.

Now look at this phrase "from the beginning of creation God made them male and female."

Of course they were always male and female. You dont have reproduction otherwise.

When was creation? how do you know? You dont know.

The earth is vastly older than 6000 years, and human ancestry traces back far far longer than that.

So if your god did make the earth and its inhabitants, he made it a very different way than the 'bible' seems to you to say it happened.

And Pi still does not equal three. No unicorns, no flood either.

 

[anabaptistfaith]

If Christ's authority is not enough, consider the "transitional forms" that have been discarded in history past. It appears that evolutionary dogma requires careless data presentation in order to survive. I would specifically list Piltdown man and Nebraska man, the latter of which was only the tooth of a pig! Neanderthal man does little for the case of evolution, in light of the fact that there is now evidence that they buried their dead and enjoyed music. This is only beginning to delve into the twists and turns that have been committed in digging up humanity's supposed pre-human past. Creationists have a right to be left wondering just why so much debating is necessary among evolutionists when the evidence is supposedly so clear.

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

If Christ's authority is not enough, consider the "transitional forms" that have been discarded in history past. It appears that evolutionary dogma requires careless data presentation in order to survive. I would specifically list Piltdown man and Nebraska man, the latter of which was only the tooth of a pig! Neanderthal man does little for the case of evolution, in light of the fact that there is now evidence that they buried their dead and enjoyed music. This is only beginning to delve into the twists and turns that have been committed in digging up humanity's supposed pre-human past.

Definitely a few frauds. Nobody will ever deny that. Weirdly enough scientists are the ones that revealed those frauds. So the system is self-correcting. I fail to see the problem here.

Another thing I fail to see here is proof.

Creationists have a right to be left wondering just why so much debating is necessary among evolutionists when the evidence is supposedly so clear.

LOL they don't debate whether or not evolution happens. They're debating far finer topics within evolution itself. You have the right to wonder and believe whatever crackpot craziness you want. Just don't expect the real world to take it seriously until you can prove it.

 

[anabaptistfaith]

In saying "male and female" Christ was specifically referring to Adam and Eve, since this statement was made in his exposition on divorce and remarriage in which he gave Adam and Eve as the founding individuals of marriage.

 

[Greg1234]

I did not say "millions". So dont correct on something i did not say.

The earliest use of fire goes back 750,000 years.

Ah but you can't do that. Remember, pi= 3

So if your god did make the earth and its inhabitants, he made it a very different way

Actually we see as depicted. Darwinian evolution isn't viable.

And Pi still does not equal three.

According to you it is.

No unicorns,

No single horned animals exist? By the way you need to specify if the reference is to a purely physical construct or an organism not yet manifesting as 3 dimensional. Creation descends from a higher state. That same way a shape becomes an object which becomes a cast model.

no flood either.

Actually, the data shows the flood event.

 

[MoonLancer]

If Christ's authority is not enough, consider the "transitional forms" that have been discarded in history past. It appears that evolutionary dogma requires careless data presentation in order to survive. I would specifically list Piltdown man and Nebraska man, the latter of which was only the tooth of a pig! Neanderthal man does little for the case of evolution, in light of the fact that there is now evidence that they buried their dead and enjoyed music. This is only beginning to delve into the twists and turns that have been committed in digging up humanity's supposed pre-human past. Creationists have a right to be left wondering just why so much debating is necessary among evolutionists when the evidence is supposedly so clear.

You do realize that many of those were never heralded as evidence. No, its creationist that keep the myth alive. congratulations. If you read up on them you would know that.

Next time before you use examples you have only heard of learn about them first and what the actual story is behind them.

do you know who discovers the hoax? scientists. When was the last time you saw a creationist correct another creationist. Yeah never.

 

[Hespera]

If Christ's authority is not enough, consider the "transitional forms" that have been discarded in history past. It appears that evolutionary dogma requires careless data presentation in order to survive. I would specifically list Piltdown man and Nebraska man, the latter of which was only the tooth of a pig! Neanderthal man does little for the case of evolution, in light of the fact that there is now evidence that they buried their dead and enjoyed music. This is only beginning to delve into the twists and turns that have been committed in digging up humanity's supposed pre-human past. Creationists have a right to be left wondering just why so much debating is necessary among evolutionists when the evidence is supposedly so clear.

Christ's authority would be fine if i had a reason to think there was such 'authority" or that what he said was accurately recorded.

But put that aside; there is no reason for the reality of deep time and evolution to spoil your religion. Educated christians seldom hold to creationist / fundie beliefs.

consider the "transitional forms" that have been discarded in history past. It appears that evolutionary dogma requires careless data presentation in order to survive.

There is no such thing as evolutionary dogma, so thats not an argument.

and 'careless data presentation' is just a clumsy false attempt to be insulting.

I would specifically list Piltdown man and Nebraska man, the latter of which was only the tooth of a pig

!

Piltdown was a joke that got out of hand, and has nothing to do with whether evolution is real. "Nebraska man' was a brief bit of enthusiasm over a worn broken tooth, and you or anyone would have a hard time distinguishing such from a humanoid tooth. its not a "pig" tooth, anyway.

I've met the great grandson of the rancher who found "nebraska man"; i suspect i now a good deal more on that thanyou do.

Neanderthal man does little for the case of evolution, in light of the fact that there is now evidence that they buried their dead and enjoyed music

.

So, they were a different type of human. The "music" bit is highly speculative. how any of that argues against evolution is a mystery to me.

Creationists have a right to be left wondering just why so much debating is necessary among evolutionists when the evidence is supposedly so clear.

If a person makes no effort to understand something then they are left to wonder, yes.

It is very abundantly clear that the world is very ancient, and that life forms evolved to their present form over many millions of years.... humans included.

That is not in any way in doubt among educated people.

Where the information is sketchy, on the frontiers of discovery, that is where the debate and discussion takes place. Despite what you think is supposedly what, a lot of details are not clear at all.

A reasonable analogy would be the history of ww2. We now there was a war, but some details are murky some will never be known. THAT is where the historians work and argue. Maybe there are WW2 deniers who like creationists would try to say the whole thing is nonsense.


But there isnt any doubt that it took place, not among educated people.