Dinosaur footprints destroy flood geology.

[AV1611VET]

To believe in creationism is to close one’s mind to the real story of evolution.

You're not a creationist? And what does creationism have to do with evolution?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

You're not a creationist? And what does creationism have to do with evolution?

They have everything to do with each other.

Creationism is the magical mystical view of the history of life.

Evolution is the scientific facts of the history of life.

So you see they are different sides of the same coin.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationism is the ... view of the history of life.

The HISTORY of life, or the BEGINNING of life?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

The HISTORY of life, or the BEGINNING of life?

Well good point, but I have never been able to nail creationists down on facts, they prefer a fluid approach to their view, that way they can move the goal posts.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

The HISTORY of life, or the BEGINNING of life?

Both, since most YECs deny the history of life as described by science and substitute their own version.

 

[AV1611VET]

Both, since most YECs deny the history of life as described by science and substitute their own version.

Which version came first - (who's denying who)?

 

[Assyrian]

Life has been around on this planet a few billion years, YECs are more recent.

 

[AV1611VET]

Life has been around on this planet a few billion years, YECs are more recent.

I hear ya.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Which version came first - (who's denying who)?

Naturally, the YEC version came first.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Well good point, but I have never been able to nail creationists down on facts, they prefer a fluid approach to their view, that way they can move the goal posts.

True dat.

Creationism actually, by its nature involves "Special Creation". So the act of "Creation" meant life was literally popping into existence over a range of time. So Creationists have difficulty understanding that for evolution, the "origins" of life aren't as important to the science, since evolution deals with "change in that life over time", leaving the "origins" to some other aspect of chemistry.

I think that's why Creationists can't discuss evolution without reference to "origins" (that would require they understand the other sides' point, which as you've seen, isn't their strong suit), but further it requires that "creation" not be a single event.

God created all these different creatures because he was unable to figure out a system by which one life form could change into another. Thankfully biologists discovered genetic drift and mutation coupled with natural selection. Maybe God could try that approach on the next universe he creates.

I liken it to the question: "Which is better? A clock that you have to constantly move the hands manually to tell you the correct time, or a clock that runs once wound up?"

Clearly creationists would prefer the clock that you have to constantly manually move the hands for. At least that appears to be their conception of God.

Theistic Evolutionists at least have a bit more of an interesting conception of God-as-adult.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Naturally, the YEC version came first.

As did geocentrism, as did the theory of "humours" in medicine, as did "spontaneous generation" in biology, as did "phlogiston", as did...

So YEC's should be applauded as being the only theory developed by ancients based on no data that is absolutely perfectly true 100% without question ever ever ever.

It's just that good!

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationism actually, by its nature involves "Special Creation".

Routine --- in God's eyes.

 

[AV1611VET]

As did geocentrism, as did the theory of "humours" in medicine, as did "spontaneous generation" in biology, as did "phlogiston", as did...

All taught to students by the scientists of their day.

 

[Split Rock]

All taught to students by the scientists of their day.

Yes, but the more important questions are, did they teach that Pluto was a planet, and that pregnant mothers should take thaldiomide?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

All taught to students by the scientists of their day.

Indeed, and all so thoroughly debunked and discredited by scientists later on that nobody will ever repeat these errors. On the other side, we have religion in general and Christianity in particular, where every imaginable denomination, heresy, sect or school of thought has its adherents because there is no way of distinguishing between true and false in theology.

 

[thaumaturgy]

All taught to students by the scientists of their day.

Indeed, and all, ultimately, proven wrong by science. Let's see how robust "Creationism" is. Care to "prove" creationism using something other than a fun time "unfalsifiable" word-game like your Apple Challenge?

You see, AV, science grows and learns, religion pretty much has a vested interest in "not learning" because to learn for the religious is to realize that they may not have "ultimate truth", which, obviously, calls into question their God.

Maybe there is a god, who knows? I see so many people with so many different ideas of what God is or isn't or what God would do or not do, or what he likes or dislikes, that I simply have to wonder; who's teaching whom what in religion?

And how will religion ever grow and mature so long as there's no way to "test" God.

But you go ahead and mock the single strength of science. Make some "point" about science's limitations. It only reveals to us religion's limitations.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, but the more important questions are, did they teach that Pluto was a planet, and that pregnant mothers should take thaldiomide?

No --- that would have been extremely-advanced science to them. They would have to wait until they got the "proper equipment" to determine those.

 

[AV1611VET]

... there is no way of distinguishing between true and false in theology.

And there is in science?

 

[AV1611VET]

I see so many people with so many different ideas of what God is or isn't or what God would do or not do, or what he likes or dislikes, that I simply have to wonder; who's teaching whom what in religion?

And science is unanimous?

 

[Nathan Poe]

The HISTORY of life, or the BEGINNING of life?

Both, AV -- surely you know that by now.

By espousing a specific BEGINNING of life, you must necessarily have a certain HISTORY that flows from it -- one that necessarily needs to be shoehorned into a 6,100 year time frame.

So Creationists need to concoct such gibberish as "Embedded Age," "The Global Flood" with "Water Vapor Canopies," and "hyper-macroevolution" in order to attempt to fit it all together.

Meaning, that Creationism does indeed deal with -- that is to say, shamlessly mutilate -- the HISTORY of life.