Evolutionist "poof" theory

[JesusFreak786]

and yes i know that scientists believe the earth is some millions years old, but if you add up the records in the Bible(how long they lived) the earth is about 6 or 7 thousand years old.

 

[Arikay]

If she had some time under her belt (being registered yesterday), and posted something beyond "Evolution is a lie, you are stupid, nananana" maybe I would give her a grace period.
But so far she has posted little on topic, and every post appears to be baiting with insults.

Even her creationist statements are incorrect. Gen 1 puts the creation of all animals (this would assume Dinos as well) before Man. Most creationists also don't believe two of every animal went onto the Ark but two of every kind.

Quite blatantly. However she is a newbie (supposedly...though there's another girl here with a similar name who posts the same types of provocations...but creationists often start to sound all the same anyway), so perhaps she could be granted a period to earn some credibility beyond the trollish behavior of stating "evolution is nothing but lies."

 

[JesusFreak786]

Sorry for hurting you....im new at this and im used to IM chats were you just blurt out everything in your mind. If you teach me how your soppose to do forums then i wont agrue with you anymore

 

[michabo]

Sorry for hurting you....im new at this and im used to IM chats were you just blurt out everything in your mind. If you teach me how your soppose to do forums then i wont agrue with you anymore

1. Read.
2. Understand.
3. Ask questions.
4. Post considered rebuttals with support where required.
5. Repeat.

This isn't IM, and soundbites aren't respected. Nor are wild accusations with no support. Remember that threads last days or weeks, and you can spend many minutes or hours on an individual post, so a high level of erudition and scholarship is possible. At the very least, it is expected that you write complete thoughts.

 

[JesusFreak786]

thankyou for saring this information with me. I am truely greatful.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Sorry for hurting you....im new at this and im used to IM chats were you just blurt out everything in your mind. If you teach me how your soppose to do forums then i wont agrue with you anymore

The way to conduct yourself if you want to be taken seriously on this forum was given to you in the first reply to your reply in this thread. You know...that post you ignored opting instead to just make more unsubstantiated assertions to bait an argument.

 

[JesusFreak786]

I have some questions though
what are angelics?
how do you get armor?
how do you get blessings?
and what is the reputation based on?

 

[JesusFreak786]

also how do you put quotes?

 

[Carmack]

http://www.christianforums.com/faq

 

[JesusFreak786]

thx carmack

 

[The Gregorian]

This is a famous explanation that sadly is silly. I think I heard it first in "Inhertit the Wind". The idea was that 6 days could have been millions of years (so that christians can evade the fact that their previous claim was scientifically absurd) the problem is that there is this little asumption that god needs the sun to tell when a day is done. Before science people just said "6 days must have been 6 days" Isn't your god all powerful? Why not just have faith like a child an believe?

so... what's the problem again? 6 revolutions of the earth is an unlikely period of time for the creation of the earth (considering it can't rotate before it's created).... we both agree on that... so what's the arguement? Just because some creationists blindly follow every word their priest tells them without giving any thought to logic, and therefore make mistakes doesn't mean that all of theism is equally wrong. Likewise, because scientists used to think the earth was flat doesn't mean that all of science is wrong.

This is cute. As a matter of fact the sun comming up must still be a theory as we don't know how it began. On top of that lets remember that we don't know where gravity came from.....

You misunderstand "theory" to mean "we have no clue whatsoever" when it really means "although not perfect and abolute it is one of the best working and well researched ideas we have."

A: the sun "comes up" because the earth is rotating so that different parts of the earth face the sun at different times. there ya go. As far as "how the earth started to rotate" and where the sun came from, that's a battle between the big bang and creationism.... It's not a complete theory until you have a basic explanation of what you're theorizing, and how it could have started.

B: It doesn't have to be complete proven fact to be a theory... but it has to be a complete thought. It doesn't have to be PROVEN... but there has to be some sort of guess at least.

I can have evolution without having abiogenesis, therefore they are most certainly not dependant

If I ask "What is that, and where did you get it?" And you reply "A pen" but didn't say you got it from the store... it's not a complete answer. The question of "how life is the way it is" is mostly about abiogenisis... evolution simply helps it. If I ask "where people came from" and you say "monkeys" that simply brings up "where did monkeys" come from. You say bacteria in the ocean. That line of questioning KEEPS GOING until you figure out where it started. If you have to stop at bacteria because there's no explanation as to how the bacteria got here, it's not a complete theory.

So lets remember that oversimplification is never good and giving the attributes of one thing to another simply because you find them similar and that helps you argument is also never good.

likewise overcomplication to the point that you can't simplify it is worse because you end up with nothing. I'll try to keep up with this thread also, but I'm restarting the question, we're way too far off topic here.

 

[yossarian]

If I ask "What is that, and where did you get it?" And you reply "A pen" but didn't say you got it from the store... it's not a complete answer. The question of "how life is the way it is" is mostly about abiogenisis... evolution simply helps it. If I ask "where people came from" and you say "monkeys" that simply brings up "where did monkeys" come from. You say bacteria in the ocean. That line of questioning KEEPS GOING until you figure out where it started. If you have to stop at bacteria because there's no explanation as to how the bacteria got here, it's not a complete theory.

are keplers laws of planetary motion incomplete because they don't explain how the planets came to be there?

 

[staugustine68]

Then your belief is an irrational thing that flies in the face of observed and universally accepted facts. Evolution--populations changing over time via mutation and selection--is a fact that even YECs can no longer deny.

I suspect you meant that you don't believve in "macro" evolution, i.e. the theory of common descent and speciation via mutation and natural selection. Which is still irrational, but at least slightly better justifiable.

Do you like Jesus?

 

[Dennis Moore]

Do you like Jesus?

Actually, I think the character is rather flat, and obviously derivative of other figures in the mythical savior genre that was popular at the time (Mithras, Atlas, Apollonius, etc.). He lacked any dynamic motivation, and so makes for an unsatisfying protagonist.

 

[Tomk80]

If I ask "What is that, and where did you get it?" And you reply "A pen" but didn't say you got it from the store... it's not a complete answer. The question of "how life is the way it is" is mostly about abiogenisis... evolution simply helps it. If I ask "where people came from" and you say "monkeys" that simply brings up "where did monkeys" come from. You say bacteria in the ocean. That line of questioning KEEPS GOING until you figure out where it started. If you have to stop at bacteria because there's no explanation as to how the bacteria got here, it's not a complete theory.

Point is that you are asking the wrong question. How did life become the way it is actually entails two bigger questions, the first being: "how did life arise?", the second being: "how did life diversify?"

Evolution answers the second subquestion, but not the first. It is not incomplete.