GAP Creationism VS YEC & OEC Creationism

[TheReasoner]

Could you try and pay attention please. I SAID you can go to any state university and they will accept the credit hours from any accredited university. You can use them for your electives. No we do not teach science. How many times have I said that Science is a different class then Religion. I just said there is no conflict between Science and Religion.

IF you think religion is creationist, there is. You and a couple of others try to pass it off as 'science'. It isn't.
Anyway... Bible college? You said 'university'. Here there is a distinct difference. Is there not in the US?

Of course I have - in general - no problem with people who have bible related education or courses. I think it's usually a boon to have as much knowledge as possible. But there are certain things I wouldn't consider a benefit. Certain mindsets and gross misunderstandings of core concepts are found among those things, which includes creationism in many situations. Such as work within the field where I am getting my degree.

You would never hire someone that graduated from a Bible college? I take it your not a christian and you do not attend a Church anywhere.

Oh, I'm a Christian. I'm just not one who dances to your tune. You said 'university' - that implies something other than bible college. I suppose I misunderstood you. IF your place of learning teaches creationism then it has no business giving out biology, geology or astronomy degrees for example. That was what I intended to say.

I do attend church. I just signed up for elections (Was asked to) for the church board. I'm active, and it's none of your business, really. But such accusations are just empty air anyway.

My son has a degree in Electronic Engineering, does that count for anything?

Of course. But electronics is hardly a relevant field. Is it? Also, it depends where it was from how relevant I'd consider it. BJU? Not very. Those blokes said no-one knows what eletricity is or where it comes from. Stating that some think it comes from the rotation of the earth, some think it comes from the sun. (source)
Anyone with an electrical or electronics degree from a "university" which claims electricity is an unexplained mystery won't be hired to do electricity related work for me without serious trying first.

I am myself not an electrical engineer. I DO have master's level classes in electronics, semiconductor technology and electromagnetics as well as an associate's degree in electronics and IT. Hardly extremely useful, but I worked in IT for five years before I decided to change careers and get a master's degree.

OOPPPSSS, you just admited you know how this bogus theory of yours works. OK GO FOR IT> Show me how mutations result in evolution. Start with the color of the hamster, show me how a mutation resulted in the hamster showing up with a different color fur. No speculation, theory, or opinion. I want the DNA evidence show me the code. Show me the code. Don't just say it prove your theory is true. Otherwise with no evidence I am going to have to assume you have a bogus theory.

Bogus? Hardly! Any theory and model is imperfect of course. But this one does work rather well.
Let me first say I don't have my degree yet. I study nanotechnology with a focus on biology. But I still have a few years left of my five year study. And: My field gives me deep insight into the inner workings of a cell. Ask me about cells and DNA etc. and I'm a decent guy to ask. Show me a leaf and ask what tree it's from and I likely won't know: That's unrelated to my field.

Right. Disclaimers done with: Apparently you are unaware of biotechnological appliances in your daily life. I don't blame you, most are. Anything from detergent to insulin are made in bacteria. Enzymes and other chemical compounds for various other uses are as well. These bacteria are given new genetic material (often) to produce the given enzyme or other molecule. THey are then by a series of mutations - which can be long - evolved into more efficient versions that secrete the given enzyme. This is only one possible application. There are others of course. But the thing is that you should doubt that evolution is true, even after faced with someone who's working on a degree in that field - and without even bothering to read up on it - is disturbing. You're right because you're right, right? Beer production, hormone production, detergent production, food production... All that is just something to be ignored when biology becomes part of it, hm?

You ask me: What mutations result in evolution? Any that last the test of time. But I assume you mean 'beneficial' alterations to a species' genome. First, it needs to happen in a sequence that is not an intron. I.e. it needs to be in a sequence that makes something useful. Swap a base pair here or there and suddenly one aminoacid is swapped for anotherone. The result is that the protein in question may misfold, may lose it's function - in which case it's detrimental. OR - it may enhance it in one way or another. Even that's not always good, it can mess up some metabolic pathway or other.But that's the gist of it.

*sigh* and now you want me to go to a genetics database, find the gene responsible for a hamster's fur color. THEN show you how to mutate it to give different colors and THEN you'll be a convertite. Hm? Jazer, I don't need to convert you to anything. You're part of a minority. Creationism is small, useless junk. It is detrimental to the human condition. Why? It is proven thoroughly wrong, and works against scientific development which can save lives. Millions of lives. I won't bother looking up that gene. First off, pasting it's contents here wouldn't fit the allowed max character limit.
So, your query about hamster color is senseless. Regardless. What we would do in order to express the gene that colors hair differently is to first identify it. Extract it. Amplify it's cDNA, possibly with certain modifications to make it something our chosen host organism can express - usually with error prone PCR - and then express the gene in a given organism. When we see how the different mutations lead to different results we can check the base pair sequence and that can teach us a lot. About the relevant protein. As I said though, I'm a newbie in my field, so I'd rather ask a professor about specifics. Regardless, as per my current understanding that's how I'd do it today. It should also be said that proteins are hardly simple molecules. You can make it your phd thesis to study a single one.

Yes, the ToE is a valid model. It is good, because it works. And in fact, next time you wash your clothes, look at the detergent and see if it contains enzymes. If it does... Well, that's produced in bacteria whose evolution was guided to produce those enzymes.

Again you show very little understanding. Most people in American are Creationists & Theistic Evolutions.

Creationism is not theistic evolution, Jazer. There is a HUGE difference between those two. My point was that very few people are creationists - you don't even contradict me. You just use yet another common creationist technique: Attack the PERSON, not his POSITION. You say I have little understanding. Trying to undermine your opposition's credibility by way of faulty logic, and then present an argument which in itself is senseless is not proper debate techniques jazer. Common, among creationists. Sure. But not acceptable.
Again, most americans are as far as I know not creationist. The numbers I have seen puts it at 30%: File:Views on Evolution.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That is hardly a majority. And as you see, Turkey tops you. Maybe Pakistan or Iran does, too. But in the west... You're the sole "champion".

Why would you assume anything. I believe that God is a God of Absolute Justice. No one is going to get away with anything. Eventually the unsaved will be cast into the Lake of fire and that is the second death. For me that means they will be destroyed and nothing will remain of them. There are basicly three theorys universalism, annilationism and the good old hell fire and brimstone. Science supports annilationism and I believe that is what the Bible teaches also. But that does not mean that if you die you will not wake up in a parellel universe somewhere. Things have a way to express themselves if not here then there.

So you DO believe they are thrown in the lake of fire. As do I. BUT: I am not telling them God is a fake. Creationists are. Inadvertedly I'm sure. But still.. They are telling non-christians of a god who's not necessarily a god of love, but that He's a god whose existence depends on science being wrong. And not just in the field of biology. In every field. Astronomy, physics, geology... You see, this drives people away. It drives them to consider God even less viable an option. So.... Even if your position were right you're harming God's kingdom. FIRST you tell them and show them the love of God. The love He has for them. That's our primary task. Then, when they know that, understand it and accept it you can start discussing Holy mysteries more in depth. But one does not introduce them to mysteries they cannot accept where they currently are any more than you should feed an infant steak!

Then you see nothing, you are still blind.

You haven't paused to ask yourself if maybe YOU are the blind one Jazer? I've seen things your way you know. Until I tested it.

I provide evidence all the time. Look up some of my old posts and see what evidence I have provided to show that the Bible is true. There is tons and tons and tons of Scientific evidence that shows us the Bible true. No one can falsify any of it.

Cannot be falsified? I can't seem to have spotted a single piece of evidence from you Jazer. And I do hope you know that any valid scientific position is falsifiable. It is testable. If it isn't, it can't strictly speaking be called proper science.

If I give you scientific evidence and it is wrong, then it is science that is wrong. That is why your better to go with God, He is never wrong and you can always count on Him.

True. But God is not your interpretation of Genesis. God is God. And going with that one interpretation cannot be sold as 'going with God'. It is simply thinking your understanding is correct, all else be darned.

The Bible has stood the test for 3500 years, generation after generation. People test the Bible and find that it is true. They apply it to their life to solve their problems and they find out it works. Science often does not stand the test of time. Science said the earth was flat. Science said the Sun goes around the Earth. Again and Again Science is shown to be wrong. But the Bible has always been true for 3500 years now.

And your interpretation of genesis has not been all that common at all. Jews don't hold to it. MOst of Christianity doesn't either. And you say 'science said'. Well, after a fashion. You neglect to mention that back then the 'scientists' were men of the cloth, usually.Clergy, in other words. Back then these questions were considered mystic and religious in nature, so it fell to priests and monks. When they said the earth was the centre of the universe, they were wrong. They even imprisoned people and were close to killing several for blasphemy. Why? THey said the earth was not the centre of the universe. The inquisition were convinced the bible said the earth was the centre, so these people were seen as blasphemers. The inquisition was wrong. And don't make that out to being the clergy forced into it by scientists. The distinction clergy/science is very new.

Most people in this country are Christian, only 1.5% or less do not believe in God.

Yep. And only 30% of you are creationists. 40% if you count the "I don't know" group. Which is still less than half.

So: Don't make this into "Christians are creationists". That's not true. Most Christians are NOT creationists.

 

[Nostromo]

You should familiarise yourself further. Perhaps have a look at

Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed
by Dr. Andrew Snelling, AiG-U.S.
November 7, 2007.

The same Dr Snelling who, in his work as a geologist, was dating Australian rock formations at billions of years old.

He knows exactly how radiocarbon dating works and why there is Carbon-14 in diamonds, and also why the latter has no bearing on the former. I don't like to cast aspersions on someone's character, but if I had to guess I'd say he's realised a decent amount of wealth and renown can be gained by pandering to religious groups.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Correct the evidence does not support a world wide flood. Noahs flood had to have been what they call a local flood. OEC & GAP both support a "local" flood.

Then YEC is false. The GLOBAL flood is central to all of YEC. I challenge you to find any significant Young Earth Creationist group that agrees with you about a local flood.

YEC begins with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden 6,000 years ago.

This is only your version of what you call YEC. Check out any YEC organization and you will see YEC begins with the Creation of the Earth, then the moon and the stars and then all life in 6 literal days 6-10 thousand (depending on the version) years ago.

Both OEC & GAP support the earth being any age science says it is. YEC has nothing to say about what was here before Adam and Eve, the theory is pretty silent on the subject.

YEC says that everything else was created in the 5 literal days before the creation of man on the 6th. That is standard YEC dogma. Try telling the people at Answers in Genesis that the universe and earth and life on it might have been around for billions of years before Adam or that the flood of Noah was local and see how far you get.
The AiG Statement of Faith - Answers in Genesis

As well as it should be because the theory is over 500 years old and they did not know back then what we know now today.

Do you know anything about the beliefs of modern YECs?? I am starting to think not. I am used to debating creationists who know very little about evolution but creationist debators who know so little about creationism are more rare.

Not at all. Adam and Eve lived in the northern part of the Furtile Cresent 6000 years ago. This was the neolithic revolution. Adam and Eve were food producers. Science has a lot to say about this. In fact all of the very first cities are listed in the Bible. What a wonderful history book to compliment our archeology findings. Tons and Tons and Tons of scientific evidence to show what the Bible says is true.

Actually the Neolithic Revolution occured in several places around the world between 7 and 10 thousand years ago but this has nothing to do with YEC.

Oh, you have evidence for mutations, errors and copy mistakes. But we also live in a fallen world. Evolution has produced NO EVIDENCE that anything positive come out of these mutations and errors. We know that sickness and disease comes out of mutations and errors. Lots of evidence for that. But no evidence that mutations results in micro much less macro evolution.
You are trying to hold up a huge theory with a toothpick. Of course you have bottleneck theory and founder effect and all of that. Still without mutations you have no theory of evolution.

This is completely wrong. While there is a tremendous amount of Evidence for Evolution that is not the topic of this thread. My point is that YEC is false whether evolution is the valid explanation for the changes in species that have occurred over time and the diversity of life on earth or not. You have admitted that YEC is false when you say the flood was local and that the universe is more than 10,000 years old. You defend something you have already said to be false. Amazing!

This is a BIG BIG BIG JOKE> You think that if you can prove the earth is older then 6,000 years that somehow in some way falsifys Creationism? Wow are you deceived.

I didn't say it falsifies Creationism. The fact that the earth is billions of years old and that there never was a global flood does falsify Young Earth Creationism in every variant I have ever seen in more than 25 years of following this debate.

There is a LOT more to Creationism that just Adam and Eve in the Garden 6,000 years ago. So you can not even falsify that much.

Are you saying there were no humans before Adam and Eve were created in a single day and placed in a magic garden 6,000 years ago? That has been falsified for a long time.
[/quote]
Both GAP & OEC accept whatever age earth you want. So showing that the earth is more then 6,000 years old does not falsify anything. [/quote] It falsifies YEC.

What is the conflict. OEC talks about the old earth. YEC talks about the new earth. The age or era we live in now. Like I said YEC represents the Neolithic Revolution. If you want to falsify YEC then you will have to falsify the Neolithic Revoltution.

This statement makes it obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. YEC and OEC are diametrically opposed. GAP theory and Day-Age creationism are not as different from one another as they are from YEC but they do have significant differences. They can't all be correct but they can all be wrong.

 

[Jazer]

Anything from detergent to insulin are made in bacteria.

I do not want anything to do with your bacteria infested junk. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The chemical detergents (and all cleaning products) are full of toxin chemicals that quickly wear out your clothes, pollute the land & water sources, harm our animals, cause allergic reactions and damaging to our health. How you can consider that a benefit is beyond me. Is that why they keep attacking P&G as the antichrist? Maybe I am a hyprocrate because I do have stock and I do make money off of that stuff. For my own personal use, now that you have warned me of the danger, I think I will go to using a green soap and detergent. Something biodegradeable that will not destory the earth. We know that God will destroy those who destroy the earth.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

So, your query about hamster color is senseless.

The point is that it has nothing to do with mutations. It is just a wild claim that evos make with nothing to back up their claim.

Creationism is not theistic evolution, Jazer.

Then all the more I am against Evolution, because it is simply not of God. God is the Creator and you want to deny God when you deny His Creation.

But one does not introduce them to mysteries they cannot accept where they currently are any more than you should feed an infant steak!

So your still on milk? Your not ready for the meat yet? Then what R U doing on this board? They say if you are not ready to run with the big dogs then stay on the porch.

You got 18 years to go and it is going to take you ever moment of that time to grow up and prepare yourself for what is coming. You do not want my help and that is fine. We are only here to help the people who want to be helped. If you want to reject the Bible and God as the Creator of Creation, then that is up to you. You can go with it's all random events and chance if you want. But my Bible says that God knows the end from the beginning. That means it is not chance, accident or errors.

When it comes to evolution there is a lot of truth and error mixed together. That is why they have you so confused. That is why God says to come out from among them and seperate yourself from their error. That does not mean you reject the truth, just the error. The way it looks now you got a LONG way to go before you get it all sorted out.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

You should familiarise yourself further. Perhaps have a look at

Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed

by Dr. Andrew Snelling, AiG-U.S.

November 7, 2007


This article speaks to a young earth. To really say or allege ignorance or misrepresentation you need to refute the science behind the dating in this case. Even if you do it will be no more than one theory faced off against another as they are all unfalsifiable, and based on assumptions, just like evolution.

Non the less I would like to hear ardent proponents for each creationist model speak to why they feel one has more to it than another. That's what I am doing here and hoping to see. How about you? Listening to evolutionists can creationists has been done to death.

The tiny amounts measured are likely either due to contamination in sample processing, other measurement errors or in-situ production of C14 from Nitrogen in diamonds exposed to radioactive sources.
RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination?

The question for YECs is, if the earth is 6,000 year old, just over 1 lifetime of C14, then why doesn't every carbon source have easily measureable amounts of C14?

 

[Jazer]

Then YEC is false. The GLOBAL flood is central to all of YEC.

Then you better run from evolution. It is filled with error and most evos admit that it is filled with error. I have time on my side. All I have to do is take a stand for the truth. It does not matter how long it takes you to figure it out. Because when you come around to the truth you will see that is where I have been all along.

This is only your version of what you call YEC. Check out any YEC organization and you will see YEC begins with the Creation of the Earth, then the moon and the stars and then all life in 6 literal days 6-10 thousand (depending on the version) years ago.

Science can confirm that. Gen Ch 1 is written from God's perspective. There really is no time with God. So a week for God could be a Billion years for us.

Answers in Genesis

I am not answers in genesis.

Do you know anything about the beliefs of modern YECs??

What difference does it make if they are wrong? I am trying to show you what is right and you want to get in the way and interfer with the truth. Then you try to falsely accuse me when I have put years and years of study work and research into this.

the Neolithic Revolution occured in several places around the world between 7 and 10 thousand years ago but this has nothing to do with YEC.

YOu want to insult me and your not interested in learning. So I am not interested in trying to explain it to you.

Are you saying there were no humans before Adam and Eve

What I have said I have said many many many many many times, and now your asking me? I am really tired of saying it over and over and over and over and over again. I have NO arguement with population genetics it is what science says it is and there is no conflict with the Bible.

you have no idea what you are talking about.

When you judge others you only judge yourself. It is indeed you who has no idea what your talking about by your own admission. Because you just admited it when you tryed to accuse me.

Rom 2:1 Romans 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science can confirm that. Gen Ch 1 is written from God's perspective. There really is no time with God. So a week for God could be a Billion years for us.

Hey, bro -- just so we're on the same page here, God created the earth in however long He did it, right?

Then Lucifer rebels, and he and 1/3 of all the angels engage in a universal struggle that left the universe in the state that it is currently in (craters on the moon and planets, stars blown up and nebulized (is that a word?), etc.

Then, after peace was restored, Genesis 1 resumes at 1:26 -- 6000 years ago.

Is this correct?

 

[TheReasoner]

I do not want anything to do with your bacteria infested junk. The chemical detergents (and all cleaning products) are ffull of toxin chemicals[/COLOR] that quickly wear out your clothes, pollute the land & water sources, harm our animals, cause allergic reactions and damaging to our health. How you can consider that a benefit is beyond me.

Is that why they keep attacking P&G as the antichrist? Maybe I am a hyprocrate because I do have stock and I do make money off of that stuff. For my own personal use, now that you have warned me of the danger, I think I will go to using a green soap and detergent. Something biodegradeable that will not destory the earth. We know that God will destroy those who destroy the earth.

Well, Jazer. Then you might want to change that stance.
First off, there are no bacteria put into your detergent. Just compounds made by bacteria. Sort of like there's no baker in your bread, right? It was made BY one.
Now, the benefit of using bacteria is that you can get dangerous and expensive, polluting processes to be much more efficient, and not only cut down the pollution, but actually use the process in cleanup efforts instead. Thereby not just replacing a polluting process by one which does not pollute and is far cheaper, but actually reducing pollution from the environment at large in the process.

So: Use of directed evolution of bacteria can ELIMINATE use of dangerous chemicals, ELIMINATE pollution in production processes, and make dangerous, volatile substances obsolete, replaced by safe, clean, sustainable methods instead. It is in fact theoretically possible to create or break down any hydrocarbon with biological processes. This includes but is not limited to gasoline and other oil derivatives. It is theoretically possible to create these products from carbondioxide for example. We're far from it now, as far as I know. But it is theoretically possible. Do you see how that can be considered... Awesome?

That's part of the benefit. In addition, very complex molecules can be made this way. As opposed to slaughtering hundreds of thousands of pigs for their insulin for example (that was what was done earlier) we can make human insulin in a simple life-form instead. Consider those benefits. The diabetics get proper human insulin, and we avoid slaughtering all those pigs for it. Besides, pig insulin is not as good for us as human insulin. So it's a win-win-win situation (Pigs win, nature wins, diabetics win)

And this is why I study nanobiotechnology, Jazer. Because in that field I can make a difference. I can help make this world a better, cleaner, more sustainable place. And if I can spend my life making this world a better place, then my life has been well spent/well invested.

The point is that it has nothing to do with mutations. It is just a wild claim that evos make with nothing to back up their claim.

Nope. It really does. You can get plants and other things with coloring which is the direct result of directed evolution. Sorry, Jazer, but this is no wild claim. This is stuff I know how to do. I haven't sat down in a lab and done it myself, not this. But I know the general process and have seen it done. So... No wild claims. Actual hard evidence.

You've been asking HOW. Well, here's the basics in one method:

What is often done is that you take the gene in question, as DNA, add it to a solution, add a little Mn2+ (Manganese ions), some RNA primer and some enzymes - DNA replicase enzymes. Heat, cool, heat cool the solution. This process is called 'error prone PCR', and is called this because it copies the DNA, but in the process makes mistakes. Random mistakes. Changing the base-pair sequence. That's what mutations are.
Then, the resultant DNA is added to vectors, there are many different kinds of these ranging from plasmids, tiny gold or tungsten balls and synthesized virus. These vectors become a means of transferring the DNA into another organism. Then, the DNA is read in the organism, translated, transcribed and you end up with a resultant protein. A mutated version of the orignial. It will behave somewhat differently to the original. We'll now have a bunch of organisms - all with different mutated versions of the original gene. Some will not work the way we want. Others work more along the lines of what we want. So we take those genes and mutate them further by the same process. Insert it into another batch of host organisms and see how that goes.

This process takes time, if done manually, and is usually automated for that reason. It can, if the quantity of organisms involved is high, work very very well however. And this is how we isolated genes from a special kind of jellyfish which had an interesting color. Mutated it, and ended up with a LARGE variety of different color genes. These genes can then be inserted into plants, animals or other organisms with the result that said organism gains the color that gene is responsible for.

So, Jazer, you see it isn't something we don't understand. We know exactly how each step works, and we can analyze the end result. We can then see exactly what mutations are responsible for the change.

One of the reasons why I can't give you a code sequence and tell you THIS is where the color changes occur is that I haven't studied those particular genes. And the transcription from RNA to proteins with subsequent folding of proteins is extremely complex. Therefore as I have not studied it I can't tell you exactly what changes gave the result. This is not something that is interesting enough for me to jump into exactly that example either. The important thing is to know how to make such changes, select for the changes you want and use them.

Then all the more I am against Evolution, because it is simply not of God. God is the Creator and you want to deny God when you deny His Creation.

I'm not denying God. If God used evolution, so what? We do. Are you saying we're better than God?

In fact, it appears to me you are trying to do that. You don't understand evolution. Fine. That's okay. So don't pretend that you do, and damn that which you don't understand. It might be you are working against God in your zeal. I think you are in fact. There's nothing supporting your stance. Only your interpretation, which is only held by a minority. A small minority. It could be you're wrong you know. It could be God is smart enough to use a complex process like evolution. That's what appears to be the case when we look at His creation. So why do you insist He's too small to do that?

We biotechnologists are no different for blacksmiths really. We take what's already there and change it's shape and form to suit our needs. We're not 'denying God'. We're using His creation to benefit us. He made us masters of His creation, and our work lets us maintain and protect it better in many many cases. It makes us better stewards in many cases. How is that anything but good?

Evolution is a wonderful testament to God's ongoing involvement with His creation. It is a wonderful testament to His ingenuity and His power. And I'm saddened that you feel threatened as opposed to thrilled by the wonder of it.

So your still on milk? Your not ready for the meat yet? Then what R U doing on this board? They say if you are not ready to run with the big dogs then stay on the porch.

No. I'm not on milk still. But I'm wondering if you may be. It seems you're too afraid of the truth to stomach it. Why is that Jazer? If you had real faith, what would frighten you about real processes used every day in industrial and agricultural processes? What fear does someone who has real faith need to have? Perfect love drives out all fear as the bible says. So why are you afraid Jazer?

You got 18 years to go and it is going to take you ever moment of that time to grow up and prepare yourself for what is coming. You do not want my help and that is fine. We are only here to help the people who want to be helped. If you want to reject the Bible and God as the Creator of Creation, then that is up to you. You can go with it's all random events and chance if you want. But my Bible says that God knows the end from the beginning. That means it is not chance, accident or errors.

Boy.. You'd have problems with Quantum mechanics...
Okay, reality is so complex you can't understand it. Welcome to the club. No-one can understand God's creation perfectly. So what? Our intellect isn't divine. We can't hope to understand it. But if you look at a computer you might not know how it all works, very few humans actually understand the inner workings of them. But does that mean they aren't made by someone? Of course not.

God is great. We enjoy His creation, and we love to learn about it. It's complex. It's extremely complex and beautiful. Do you claim to be smart enough to know God and His creation so well you can say God can't predict and plan well enough to use a process like evolution to His benefit?
I sure wouldn't dare to be that arrogant. God is GOD. I'm not.

Also... 18 years? Until what?

When it comes to evolution there is a lot of truth and error mixed together. That is why they have you so confused. That is why God says to come out from among them and seperate yourself from their error. That does not mean you reject the truth, just the error. The way it looks now you got a LONG way to go before you get it all sorted out.

Jazer, I get it. You're threatened by evolution. You don't understand it. That's okay. But that you don't understand it does neither mean it cannot be understood nor that others don't understand it. You feel threatened by it's grandure, it's complexity... What do I know. You're scared of it. But I am pretty confident that if you actually understood it and listened a little less to those fear mongers who spread fear of it you'd grow to love it. And praise God for it, too.

Maybe you are the one who needs to sort things out Jazer. I've been where you are. The fear, the anger, the whole shebang. But knowledge and love drives fear out. There's nothing to fear, Jazer.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Then you better run from evolution. It is filled with error and most evos admit that it is filled with error.

Again with the logical error of the False Dichotomy.

I have time on my side. All I have to do is take a stand for the truth. It does not matter how long it takes you to figure it out. Because when you come around to the truth you will see that is where I have been all along.

Since YEC, GAP theorist and Day Age Creationists all have different versions of the "TRUTH" which are you standing for??

Science can confirm that. Gen Ch 1 is written from God's perspective. There really is no time with God. So a week for God could be a Billion years for us.

That's not what the YECs say and the order of creation is still wrong. Do you think the earth was created billions of years before the stars, sun and moon?

I am not answers in genesis.

AiG and all YEC groups claim there was a Global Flood and that the universe, and the earth and all "kinds" of life were created less than 10,000 years ago in six literal days. You can't reconcile this with OEC no matter how you try.

What difference does it make if they are wrong? I am trying to show you what is right and you want to get in the way and interfer with the truth. Then you try to falsely accuse me when I have put years and years of study work and research into this.

You have put in years of study and don't even know what YECs actually believe? I guess you haven't been studying YEC.

YOu want to insult me and your not interested in learning. So I am not interested in trying to explain it to you.

It seems more likely to me that you can't reconcile the scientific evidence of origins the neolithic revolution in multiple places around the world with your claims so you won't address it.

What I have said I have said many many many many many times, and now your asking me? I am really tired of saying it over and over and over and over and over again. I have NO arguement with population genetics it is what science says it is and there is no conflict with the Bible.

You claim there is no conflict with your interpretation of the Bible, which has nothing to do with YEC.

When you judge others you only judge yourself. It is indeed you who has
no idea what your talking about by your own admission. Because you just admited it when you tryed to accuse me.

Rom 2:1 Romans 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

Now there is a strange argument. I merely pointed out that you have demonstrated that you have no idea what you are talking about.

What I find most amusing is that you said that both YEC and OEC and established on Rock Solid Science and then stated that two of the central tenants of YEC, the Global Flood and earth created in 6, 24 hour days, a few thousand years a few thousand years ago are false. If you believe there were any humans on earth before Adam or any other humans alive at the time Adam and Eve were created you are also in direct conflict the the "Rock Solid Science" that you say YEC is established on.

 

[createdtoworship]

Is that not what the textbooks say? That fishy fish life swam until they ran out of water, climbed up on shore, developed lungs, grew legs, became titans of their time, frayed the scales til they became feathers, shrunk, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around, and became birds. Or for men- the fishy fish swam til they ran out water, climbed up on land, grew lungs and fur this time, scampered around at the feet of giant tweety bird T rexes, til they ditched walking on all fours for two legged transportation, climbed trees, jumped down from trees to build a fire, shed their fur, grew a bigger brain, and now believes we came from monkeys. Tell me exactly where I got it so wrong at.

besides
OEC has death before sin. It can be pointed out that all creation groaneth" and that creation's death and all death was because of adams rebellion.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Is that not what the textbooks say? That fishy fish life swam until they ran out of water, climbed up on shore, developed lungs, grew legs, became titans of their time, frayed the scales til they became feathers, shrunk, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around, and became birds. Or for men- the fishy fish swam til they ran out water, climbed up on land, grew lungs and fur this time, scampered around at the feet of giant tweety bird T rexes, til they ditched walking on all fours for two legged transportation, climbed trees, jumped down from trees to build a fire, shed their fur, grew a bigger brain, and now believes we came from monkeys. Tell me exactly where I got it so wrong at.

It doesn't matter what you got wrong (a lot). Young Earth Creationism has been falsified whether or not evolution is the correct explaination for the changes in species over time and the diversity of life on earth.

BTW it is off topic here but we didn't exactly shed our fur. You have at least as many hairs per square inch of skin as the average ape. They just don't grow out or only grow out as very short fine hairs on most people. There are exceptions

besides
OEC has death before sin. It can be pointed out that all creation groaneth" and that creation's death and all death was because of adams rebellion.

You can agrue for or against YEC or OEC, you seem to be for YEC, but to argue as Jazer has done that YEC and the various forms of OEC are basically compatible and both supported by "Rock Solid" Scienttific Evidence is simply nonsense. They can't all be right but they can all be wrong. Theistic and atheisit evolution could also be wrong and these forms of creationism could still all be wrong. For example, attacking gap theory does not really support YEC or day age creationism. It only attacks Gap Theory.

 

[createdtoworship]

It doesn't matter what you got wrong (a lot). Young Earth Creationism has been falsified whether or not evolution is the correct explaination for the changes in species over time and the diversity of life on earth.

BTW it is off topic here but we didn't exactly shed our fur. You have at least as many hairs per square inch of skin as the average ape. They just don't grow out or only grow out as very short fine hairs on most people. There are exceptions

You can agrue for or against YEC or OEC, you seem to be for YEC, but to argue as Jazer has done that YEC and the various forms of OEC are basically compatible and both supported by "Rock Solid" Scienttific Evidence is simply nonsense. They can't all be right but they can all be wrong. Theistic and atheisit evolution could also be wrong and these forms of creationism could still all be wrong. For example, attacking gap theory does not really support YEC or day age creationism. It only attacks Gap Theory.

all you have is a hair argument, so i must have got the rest right lol

and
attacking evolution attacks OEC though, else there is no mechanism to grow.

 

[Split Rock]

I The point is that it has nothing to do with mutations. It is just a wild claim that evos make with nothing to back up their claim.
.

Sorry Jazer, but you are wrong. I did a Google Scholar search for "hamster hair color mutation," and look what I found:

hamster hair color mutation - Google Scholar

Rex coat: A new mutation in the Syrian hamster
Rex coat: A new mutation in the Syrian hamster

Dark Gray and Lethal Gray—Two New Coat Color Mutations in Syrian Hamsters
Dark Gray and Lethal Gray—Two New Coat Color Mutations in Syrian Hamsters

Satin—A new coat mutant in the Syrian hamster
Satin—A new coat mutant in the Syrian hamster

A MUTATION IN THE GOLDEN HAMSTER
A MUTATION IN THE GOLDEN HAMSTER

Why are you even going off about hair color in hamsters anyway? Most creationists would not have a problem with it since they would simply call it "microevolution."

 

[Split Rock]

Is that not what the textbooks say? That fishy fish life swam until they ran out of water, climbed up on shore, developed lungs, grew legs, became titans of their time, frayed the scales til they became feathers, shrunk, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around, and became birds. Or for men- the fishy fish swam til they ran out water, climbed up on land, grew lungs and fur this time, scampered around at the feet of giant tweety bird T rexes, til they ditched walking on all fours for two legged transportation, climbed trees, jumped down from trees to build a fire, shed their fur, grew a bigger brain, and now believes we came from monkeys. Tell me exactly where I got it so wrong at.

Why do creationists think that coming up with a funny sounding caricature of evolution is an argument? I could easily do the same to creationism.. in fact, GEN doesn't even need a caricature in the first place. It's already a caricature complete with a dirt-man, a rib-woman, a talking snake and magical fruit.

besides
OEC has death before sin. It can be pointed out that all creation groaneth" and that creation's death and all death was because of adams rebellion.

Funny how you write this completely serious after the earlier caracature and don't even see there is little difference between them!

 

[Split Rock]

Oh, you have evidence for mutations, errors and copy mistakes. But we also live in a fallen world. Evolution has produced NO EVIDENCE that anything positive come out of these mutations and errors. We know that sickness and disease comes out of mutations and errors. Lots of evidence for that. But no evidence that mutations results in micro much less macro evolution.

Show us evidence that sickness and disease all come out of mutations and errors.

There are plenty of examples of beneficial mutations. Of course, you are likely to claim that any example I present is not "positive" in your opinion, so let's first define "positive." Would you agree that it is a "positve" mutation if it improves the survivial or reproduction of the particular organism in its current environment?

 

[AV1611VET]

.. in fact, GEN doesn't even need a caricature in the first place. It's already a caricature complete with a dirt-man, a rib-woman, a talking snake and magical fruit.

Let's fine-tune your point, shall we?

1. It's a dust-man, not a dirt-man. Saying it is a dirt-man is like saying you licked a cake, when all you did was licked the icing off the top.

2. Rib-woman is vulgarly correct.

3. It was not a talking snake. It was a serpent-beast, having four legs.

4. It was not magical fruit. Some think it was a fig tree.

 

[Split Rock]

Let's fine-tune your point, shall we?

1. It's a dust-man, not a dirt-man. Saying it is a dirt-man is like saying you licked a cake, when all you did was licked the icing off the top.

OK... "dust-man".. if you really think that sounds any better.

2. Rib-woman is vulgarly correct.

Thanks!

3. It was not a talking snake. It was a serpent-beast, having four legs.

How do you know it had four legs? Book and chapter, please.

4. It was not magical fruit. Some think it was a fig tree.

Sure it was magical. It instantaneously tranfered knowlege ino anyone who ate it.

 

[createdtoworship]

Why do creationists think that coming up with a funny sounding caricature of evolution is an argument? I could easily do the same to creationism.. in fact, GEN doesn't even need a caricature in the first place. It's already a caricature complete with a dirt-man, a rib-woman, a talking snake and magical fruit.


Funny how you write this completely serious after the earlier caracature and don't even see there is little difference between them!

go ahead and do it but do it with ID not creationism.

thats a little harder.

 

[TheReasoner]

go ahead and do it but do it with ID not creationism.

thats a little harder.

Nnno. ID is just creationism prettied up a bit. Same stuff though. Why can't you guys just let God's creation speak for itself? If you really believe you surely can't fear it doing anything but ultimately point TO God. Of course, if you try to force mankind's mind you may end up making it appear creation contradicts God. That's what creationists do, and just the same what IDers do.

Leave it be, and trust God.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

all you have is a hair argument, so i must have got the rest right lol

No I just didn't want to get off topic burning up all your other strawmen.

and
attacking evolution attacks OEC though, else there is no mechanism to grow.

This statement does not make sense.