Evolution is a lie because... (Split from "Scientific proof of flood.")

Edx · Apr 8, 2005

JohnR7 said:
Creation is the evidence for a Creator, so I would say there is actually quite a bit of evidence.

There is no evidence for this "creation". You argue in circles

Ed

JohnR7 · Apr 8, 2005

Edx said:
"Pretty much"? Arikay I know you are trying to be polite but Ive never known anyone that can be wrong about absolutely everything as he is .

Sometimes he is right about telling people what they want to hear. Actually, he does a pretty good job of walking the party line, he is associated with Bob Jones so what do you expect?

JohnR7 · Apr 8, 2005

Edx said:
There is no evidence for this "creation". You argue in circles

Creation itself is the evidence. If there were no Creator then there would be no creation. If you think you have a better explaination for where creation came from go ahead and share it with us. In the mean time, this is the best available explaination right now.

Edx · Apr 8, 2005

JohnR7 said:
Creation itself is the evidence. If there were no Creator then there would be no creation. If you think you have a better explaination for where creation came from go ahead and share it with us.

Science seems to explain thngs pretty well without calling magic and miracles to explain things. Now we dont know everything, but that doesnt mean we know nothing. Now if you can come up with a more reliable method of knowing if something is true or not, please yet me know.

And even if you establish the universe had a cause, that doesnt not equal a creator. Thats a leap. Even if you could show the universe was "designed" that also doesnt equal god as you know it. You just cant fathom the number of possibilities there could be, and your Bible-God creator is near the bottom of any likely senarios.

In the mean time, this is the best available explaination right now.

Dont pretend you are being logical. Its not the best explantion, its your religious faith.

Ed

Asimov · Apr 8, 2005

JohnR7 said:
Creation itself is the evidence. If there were no Creator then there would be no creation. If you think you have a better explaination for where creation came from go ahead and share it with us. In the mean time, this is the best available explaination right now.

Um...

That's assuming that the universe is Creation, which is a horribly weak assumption.

JohnR7 · Apr 9, 2005

Asimov said:
Um...

That's assuming that the universe is Creation, which is a horribly weak assumption.

It depends on how you look at it. In a two dimensional world a triangle can never be a circle. In a three dimensional world a cone can be both a triangle and a circle. We live in a four dimensional world: length, width, height and time. Yet from Physics we learn that a minimum of 9 dimensions of space and time existed in the first 10 34 seconds following the creation event. So we know that God must be able to function in at least 9 dimensions and perhaps more. Who is to say that He does not operate in spiritual dimensions completely distinct from space and time. So if your looking for evidence for God in a two, three or four dimensions of time and space you may come to the conclusion that your understanding of God is "horribly weak". You have to look for God in a world that has more than 4 dimensions. He is not going to be limited by your limitations.

If you lived in a two dimensional world then God could fully function in those two dimensions. But if He were three dimensional, then you would not be able to fully comprehend.

Arikay · Apr 10, 2005

Unfortunately Jenny has used a bible verse in another post as an excuse to leave, so we wont get to see the next part of the report. I was kind of expecting this when it changed from longer well written posts to quick pratt like questions.

I thought I would use this post to hi-light how creationist groups (especially ones like Hovind) servilely under prepare people, all the while telling them they are prepared. They act as if you should be able to say a couple things and evolution will come tumbling down and everyone will become a creationist. Out in the real world can be shocking and overwhelming to someone who believes that is true. It's like sending someone off to WWII with a foil hat and a redryder BB gun, telling them the germans don't stand a chance.

Hopefully we will see Jenny again once she has processed some of the information.

JohnR7 · Apr 10, 2005

Arikay said:
I thought I would use this post to hi-light how creationist groups (especially ones like Hovind) servilely under prepare people, all the while telling them they are prepared.

Hovind's disciples do not last very long on this forum. If people want something of any substance they need to study a creation scientist that has a real PHd. like Ross, Behe, Denton, Schroeder and so forth. Then they will be prepared to give Evos a run for their money. Or at least they will learn a little bit of something along the way.

Arikay · Apr 10, 2005

Yes, I strongly recommend people read Denton, especially his more recent works.

Girl_4_God · Jun 14, 2005

Edx said:
There is no evidence for this "creation". You argue in circles

Ed

Alright i'm going to aske some questions. how did trees come to be?

Jenny

Girl_4_God · Jun 14, 2005

Arikay said:
Hopefully we will see Jenny again once she has processed some of the information.

I guess I just can't stay away. I really tried but i'm to interested in this subject.
Jenny

troodon · Jun 14, 2005

Girl_4_God said:
how did trees come to be?

Gymnosperms or angiosperms?

I mean, in short they evolved from non-tree plants. Gymnosperms evolved from non-vascular plants. Non-vascular plants live in or very near water (they have to absorb water through their "skin") and have no seeds. A modern example include lichen. Vascular plants are defined as having a water-moving system (xylem and phloem, if you haven't already you should learn about them in your biology class). Gymnosperms are vascular plants with seeds. Gymnosperms first appeared after plants arrived on land (which is why they needed the water-movement system). Many varieties eventually evolved a hardy outer surface to help hold them up against earth's gravity (this was not needed in the former aquatic environment due to boyancy). Leaves evolved and diversified greatly for maximum surface area in order to capture sunlight and absorb water and CO2

Angiosperms evolved from these Gymnosperms. All flowering plants are angiosperms. The first angiosperms that I'm aware of are sort of water lily-like although I have heard of a tree-like one that rivals those in age.

It seems unlikely to me that bark (hard outer surface) would have evolved twice so it seems reasonable to me that the earliest Angiosperms would have been trees or shrubs of some sort, but I am no paleobotanist so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

:æ: · Jun 14, 2005

Girl_4_God said:
how did trees come to be?

I think you need to consider how YOU would respond to this question, especially when you read others' responses.

I'm going to go out on a limb and presume that you'd answer "God created trees. That's how they came to be." Now, I want you to consider this hypothetical response of yours, and to consider what, exactly, it explains about how the trees came to be. Do you know how God created them? Do you know what his methods were? Did he create the atoms first, and then assemble them in a puzzle-like fashion until they formed a tree? Did he recite a particular incantation and conjure them out of thin air? How does that work?

If you do not know the answers to these questions, and moreso if you believe that there is no possible way to discover answers to these questiosn, then I want you to consider what "God created trees" really explains. It explains nothing. In fact, it doesn't really answer the "how" question at all. It only answers a "who" question that wasn't asked.

THAT is one of the many faults of creationism. Instead of seekng answers to the real questions, it simply declares them, baselessly, unanswerable.

:æ:

BigToe · Jun 14, 2005

A first year biology class will glady explain how plants and trees and whatever botantical organisms developed to what they are today.

LittleNipper · Jun 14, 2005

:æ: said:
I think you need to consider how YOU would respond to this question, especially when you read others' responses.

I'm going to go out on a limb and presume that you'd answer "God created trees. That's how they came to be." Now, I want you to consider this hypothetical response of yours, and to consider what, exactly, it explains about how the trees came to be. Do you know how God created them? Do you know what his methods were? Did he create the atoms first, and then assemble them in a puzzle-like fashion until they formed a tree? Did he recite a particular incantation and conjure them out of thin air? How does that work?

If you do not know the answers to these questions, and moreso if you believe that there is no possible way to discover answers to these questiosn, then I want you to consider what "God created trees" really explains. It explains nothing. In fact, it doesn't really answer the "how" question at all. It only answers a "who" question that wasn't asked.

THAT is one of the many faults of creationism. Instead of seekng answers to the real questions, it simply declares them, baselessly, unanswerable.

:æ:

GOD spoke EVERYTHING into existance. You may study the atom. You may know the sum of its parts, but you will not be able to manufacture something from nothing. GOD will tell you to get your own dirt...

BigToe · Jun 14, 2005

Saying God did it doesn't say HOW he did it though. Why is it hard to imagine that God uses evolution and such for his methods as to HOW?

GodsSamus · Jun 14, 2005

Arikay said:
A split from the Scientific proof of flood thread.

What is evolution?
Why is it a lie?
Why has it endured for so many years and helped science if it is a lie?

I define Evolution as the belief that animals change into other animals.

It's a lie because it has no evidence to support it. The 1% difference in one strand of DNA is enough to write the whole Harry Potter series twice. Changing 3 letters is fatal. Lucy's not a link, only a pure ape with a leg bone found a year earlier and a mile and a half away in another layer of rock. There are no links. Archaeopteryx is now known to be a fraud. Nebraska man was based on one tooth. Pilt-down man was a HORRIBLE fraud that tricked scientists for 40 years. Java man is based on three teeth, a leg, and a skull.

It's endured for so long because the only alternative is special Creation, and that is unthinkable.

GodsSamus · Jun 14, 2005

BigToe said:
A first year biology class will glady explain how plants and trees and whatever botantical organisms developed to what they are today.

An Oak tree and a Pine tree probably share a common ancestor... a tree. But the Evolutionist has to believe that the tree came from a bacteria (alledged common ancestor). Which, of course, came from raining on the rocks for millions of years, turning them into soup and then bacteria. All life forms come from a rock? Hardly science.

Elduran · Jun 14, 2005

GodsSamus said:
I define Evolution as the belief that animals change into other animals.

It's a lie because it has no evidence to support it. The 1% difference in one strand of DNA is enough to write the whole Harry Potter series twice. Changing 3 letters is fatal. Lucy's not a link, only a pure ape with a leg bone found a year earlier and a mile and a half away in another layer of rock. There are no links. Archaeopteryx is now known to be a fraud. Nebraska man was based on one tooth. Pilt-down man was a HORRIBLE fraud that tricked scientists for 40 years. Java man is based on three teeth, a leg, and a skull.

It's endured for so long because the only alternative is special Creation, and that is unthinkable.

You have already had your comments about Lucy completely refuted on another thread, and the other fossils you offered as fakes were also explained. Now you are either being deliberately ignorant or you are lying. Which is it, because BOTH are inexcusable at this stage.

Elduran · Jun 14, 2005

GodsSamus said:
An Oak tree and a Pine tree probably share a common ancestor... a tree. But the Evolutionist has to believe that the tree came from a bacteria (alledged common ancestor). Which, of course, came from raining on the rocks for millions of years, turning them into soup and then bacteria. All life forms come from a rock? Hardly science.

*sigh*

Let me say this again:

STOP LISTENING TO KENT HOVIND, THE MAN KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT SCIENCE AND MAKES UP MOST OF WHAT HE CALLS "EVOLUTIONARY THEORY"

The current theory of abiogenesis is that life first formed next to volcanic vents underwater, so nothing to do with "raining on rocks" as Mr Dino would have people believe... (I say Mr Dino because I utterly refuse to acknowledge his PhD)

Evolution is a lie because... (Split from "Scientific proof of flood.")

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Objectivist

Well-Known Member

HI

Well-Known Member

HI

Active Member

Active Member

Be wise and be smart

Veteran

You are my itchy sweater.

Contributor

You are my itchy sweater.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Disruptive influence

Disruptive influence

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency