Evolution/Creation on Trial

[Smidlee]

What's contradicting about what you posted?

Evolutionist claims that evolution causes organisms both to evolve and not to evolve. Evolution covers absolutely everything including explains away evolutionist belief that they evolved.

 

[Syamsu]

I am not concerned whether a person accepts or denies evolution. My concern is that "creation science" denies evolution by way of misrepresenting science. Thus rejecting it for the wrong reasons.

The right reasons to reject evolution theory are the lack of acnowledgement that freedom is real in the theory, and the social darwinism, atheism, nazism, communism etc. associated to evolution theory.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Evolutionist claims that evolution causes organisms both to evolve and not to evolve. Evolution covers absolutely everything including explains away evolutionist belief that they evolved.

I'm sorry, I didn't understand any of that.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I am not concerned whether a person accepts or denies evolution. My concern is that "creation science" denies evolution by way of misrepresenting science. Thus rejecting it for the wrong reasons.

Then it is all fair because often evolutionists deny science to misrepresent creationism.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The right reasons to reject evolution theory are the lack of acnowledgement that freedom is real in the theory, and the social darwinism, atheism, nazism, communism etc. associated to evolution theory.

Actually, even if the associations with social darwinism, atheism, Nazism, communism, etc., were substantial (a dubious proposition to start with), those would be the wrong reasons to reject evolution, since that would be an appeal to consequences, which is a fallacy.

 

[Smidlee]

I'm sorry, I didn't understand any of that.

You want to give you an example.

"An international team of scientists has discovered the greatest absence of evolution ever reported — a type of deep-sea microorganism that appears not to have evolved over more than 2 billion years. But the researchers say that the organisms’ lack of evolution actually supports Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/s...at-hasnt-evolved-in-more-than-2-billion-years

I wished that would work at my job. My absence is evidence I'm there working.

 

[joshua 1 9]

first of all, i'm not arguing for or against a god.
second, if there was indeed a god, would it make any difference for the issue at hand?

It would make no difference to deism. It would only make a difference if God were an active part of His creation.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You want to give you an example.

"An international team of scientists has discovered the greatest absence of evolution ever reported — a type of deep-sea microorganism that appears not to have evolved over more than 2 billion years. But the researchers say that the organisms’ lack of evolution actually supports Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/s...at-hasnt-evolved-in-more-than-2-billion-years

I wished that would work at my job. My absence is evidence I'm there working.

Ummm... I'm not seeing the problem here. I'm not aware of any "rule" that says that species must evolve at a particular rate.

 

[Smidlee]

Ummm... I'm not seeing the problem here. I'm not aware of any "rule" that says that species must evolve at a particular rate.

I'm not aware of any "law" that all species must "evolved" according to man's imaginary tree. What "law" claims that all mammals had to evolve from Boobzilla?

 

[joshua 1 9]

those would be the wrong reasons to reject evolution, since that would be an appeal to consequences, which is a fallacy.

No one rejects evolution, not even Hovind. They just reject all the faulty conclusions that evolutionists try to make using the most scanty of evidence. No matter how much you try to dress it up and make it look pretty. They claim if it is beautiful, simple or elegant then it must be true. As Christians we want to be a bit more careful because we are told that: "Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light." or "impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived."

 

[bhsmte]

Then it is all fair because often evolutionists deny science to misrepresent creationism.

Examples?

 

[justlookinla]

Ummm... I'm not seeing the problem here. I'm not aware of any "rule" that says that species must evolve at a particular rate.

Shades of punctuated equilibria!! (Just more guesses and suppositions to add to the mountain of guesses and suppositions of Darwinist evolution).

 

[bhsmte]

99.9% of all the species that have ever existed on earth are now extinct. Can you imagine if you were to go to a zoo that had a representive of all those extinct species? Other then Jurassic park of course. It is actually evolution that demands a continuum.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...em-perished-in-five-cataclysmic-events-t.html

Interesting how this is the 6th extinction that we are going though and the Bible says we are at the end of the 6th day. So we see the same theme play itself in a lot of different ways. There does seem to be a correlation and that is why I accept both YEC and OEC creationism. They are both correct from their rather limited perspective. Even though I am a dispensationalist.

You are kidding me, right?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Do I also need to disprove the existence of demons before I accept that seizures originate from epileptogenic discharges in the brain?

So your belief then is that demons can not have a physical effect on the Body? I have prayed for people and the seizures went away, but I think that was just a positive effect of my energy on their nervous system. I am not big on demonology myself. If they exist I leave them alone and they leave me alone.

 

[Smidlee]

You are kidding me, right?

He probably didn't know that the idea that 99.9% of all species are now extinct is totally based on evolutionist assumption of all those missing mythological creatures. The fossil record doesn't support this assumption.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm not aware of any "law" that all species must "evolved" according to man's imaginary tree. What "law" claims that all mammals had to evolve from Boobzilla?

Nice dodge. Care to answer the question?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No one rejects evolution, not even Hovind. They just reject all the faulty conclusions that evolutionists try to make using the most scanty of evidence. No matter how much you try to dress it up and make it look pretty. They claim if it is beautiful, simple or elegant then it must be true. As Christians we want to be a bit more careful because we are told that: "Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light." or "impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived."

It would indeed be fallacious to claim that if it is beautiful, simple, or elegant, then it must be true. Fortunately, "evolutionists" (i.e., scientists) don't claim that. We know it to be true because the evidence supports it, not because it is beautiful, simple, or elegant.

 

[Smidlee]

Nice dodge. Care to answer the question?

What was the question again?

 

[justlookinla]

Nice dodge. Care to answer the question?

You're wanting someone to answer a question you asked? How about that!!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So your belief then is that demons can not have a physical effect on the Body?

I see no reason to believe that there are demons at all.

I have prayed for people and the seizures went away, but I think that was just a positive effect of my energy on their nervous system.

I would strongly urge you to encourage anyone who has seizures to seek medical assistance.